Did Prasad and RSS make India skip the Peace Treaty meeting (with Japan) in San Francisco in 1951

The buzz at that time was that the Indian Govt. did not send a representative to that meeting because India's friend China had not been invited to the meeting (due to Japan's insistence).

The basic reason to invite India to the meeting, probably at the insitence of Britain and USA, was that there were thousands of Indian soldiers (including my late uncle) who were a part of the British (Indian) army (in the pre-Independence India) taking part in WWII against Japan in Indochina.

Many of these Indian soldiers faced tremendous hardship and rough treatment from the Japanese army, especially after being taken as POWs when the British army was initially run over by the Japanese in Indochina (watch the movie "A bridge on the river Kwai" for rough conditions etc. for Allied soldier POWs). Some of the POWs were also put to work by the Japanese army (including my uncle who drove a truck in the jungles of Indochina) and they were paid for their work (as POW0 in wartime Japanese "dollars".

Thus when Japan lost the War and these POWs were freed they returned home with stacks of Japanese "dollars" for their work as POWs. But there was no value in their money (Japanese "dollars"). The meeting in San Francisco was also an opportunity for India (the Indian Govt. now, after Independence) to present the case of its citizens (ex-Indian soldiers) and seek compensation from Japan (for rough treatment etc. of Indian soldiers by the Japanese army in WWII and also the uncoverted money with Indian POWs).

Thus by taking the decision to not attend the meeting in San Francisco in 1951, Indian Govt. lost the opportunity for compensation to its citizens (ex-soldiers) from Japan.

Btw how brutal were the conditions and treatment (including the bad food) for these soldiers from India fighting in Indochina in WWII? My uncle's platoon, which had more than 20 men at the beginning of War, had only 2 guys (my uncle and another soldier) left when the War ended. My uncle came back in extremely poor health -- the effect of bad food and working as POW for long hours and in very rough conditions in the jungles of Indochina. He also had a large stack of wartime Japanese "dollars" with him which he had earned working as a POW for the Japanese army. But that money never got exchanged (Japanese authorities refused to honor it afterwards), because the Indian Govt. had decided earlier (in 1951) to not attend the Peace Treaty meeting in San Francisco and present the gievances / claims of its citizens against Japan. We, kids in the house, used that money (fancy Japanese "dollar" notes earned by my uncle) as play money for a long time.

The meeting in 1951 in San Francisco basically ended all the obligations and culpability on the part of Japan in WWII.

The answer, Sevaji, is no. Prasad and RSS did not stop India from participating in the Treaty of San Francisco. You see, they were too busy fighting the law that sought to ban Hindu polygamy and give equal inheritance rights to Hindu women.

India signed its own peace treaty with Japan in 1952, after the American occupation ended and Japan regained its sovereignty.

(1) The answer, Sevaji, is no. Prasad and RSS did not stop India from participating in the Treaty of San Francisco. You see, they were too busy fighting the law that sought to ban Hindu polygamy and give equal inheritance rights to Hindu women. “ Tro.

>>> LOL. Anyway, Prasad et al. were not objecting to the Govt. about the matter of Hindu law at that time (1951, Treaty in San Francisco). They did it later and only after the Govt. failed to implement the UCC and started fiddling with Hindu law while leaving similar religious laws for other communities intact.

(2) “India signed its own peace treaty with Japan in 1952, after the American occupation ended and Japan regained its sovereignty.” … Tro.

>>> Do you really believe in this white-washing for India’s initial mistake in not attending the Treaty meeting in 1951 (for the sake of China not getting the initial invitation)? The American forces are still there in Japan on the island of Okinawa more than 60 years after that Treaty. The right thing for India would have been to present the case and claim of its citizens (ex-soldiers etc.) in the San Francisco meeting in 1951 and not be overly concerned about the country whose army had mistreated etc. its soldiers to giving rise to such claims.

Unfortunately, India chose the latter and refused to attend the initial Treaty in 1951 thus permanently forfeiting the right to claims for its citizens (e.g. ex-soldiers) from Japan.

In this regard, there was no benefit to Indians from the Treaty signing by India in 1952. Years later, when I contacted a Japanese embassy during 1970s for settling the issue of wartime Japanese “dollars” to my late uncle for his work as a POW for Japanese army during WWII, the Japanese officials rejected the claim that the matter of compensations for Japanese army’s actions during WWII had been taken care of and closed in 1951 in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco which India had refused to attend thus forfeiting all rights to claims in future for its citizens.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:LOL. Anyway, Prasad et al. were not objecting to the Govt. about the matter of Hindu law at that time (1951, Treaty in San Francisco). They did it later and only after the Govt. failed to implement the UCC and started fiddling with Hindu law while leaving similar religious laws for other communities intact.

Not true, Sevaji. Prasadji objected to Hindu code reform in 1948 and 1949 and kept up the opposition for the next several years. Same with RSS.

"Not true, Sevaji. Prasadji objected to Hindu code reform in 1948 and 1949 and kept up the opposition for the next several years. Same with RSS. " Tro.
>>> That is just a whitewash, basically to blame the RSS and Prasad for not implementing the UCC.
Prasad and others raised objections (mostly in mid 1950s) to unilateral and differential (seemingly discriminatory) changes by Govt. in the Hindu law while leaving other religious laws (for Muslims etc.) intact.
Prasad and others were not objecting to the implementation of UCC but to the changes only to the laws for their community.
It seems the Govt. cared little about its own people. It took more than a decade (almost two decades) for Indian Govt. to restore the pensions to Indian soldiers returning from WWII, while the Govt. handed over quickly Rs. 55 crore (the previously agreed upon amount) to Pakistan even after that country had engaged in a war in Kashmir with India in 1948.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:Prasad and others raised objections (mostly in mid 1950s)

From India after Gandhi by Ramachandra Guha, page 230:

In June 1948, shortly after the Select Committee [on Hindu Code Bill] had been set up, Prasad warned the prime minister that to introduce "basic changes" in personal law to impose the "progressive ideas" of a "microscopic minority" of the Hindu community as a whole. Nehru answered that the Cabinet had declared itself in favor of the bill, that "personally, I am entirely in favor of the general principles embodied in it." To scrap the legislation now would give rise to the suspicion that the Congress was "a reactionary and a very conservative body;" nor would it go down well "in the mind of foreigners outside India." Prasad shot back that the opinions of the "vast bulk of the Hindu public" were more important than the views of foreigners.

trofimov wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:Prasad and others raised objections (mostly in mid 1950s)

From India after Gandhi by Ramachandra Guha, page 230:

In June 1948, shortly after the Select Committee [on Hindu Code Bill] had been set up, Prasad warned the prime minister that to introduce "basic changes" in personal law to impose the "progressive ideas" of a "microscopic minority" of the Hindu community as a whole. Nehru answered that the Cabinet had declared itself in favor of the bill, that "personally, I am entirely in favor of the general principles embodied in it." To scrap the legislation now would give rise to the suspicion that the Congress was "a reactionary and a very conservative body;" nor would it go down well "in the mind of foreigners outside India." Prasad shot back that the opinions of the "vast bulk of the Hindu public" were more important than the views of foreigners.

LOL. It’s just a whitewash by the recent historians to blame the RSS and Prasad et al. for Govt.’s failure to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC: one law for everyone, irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender) in the country.

Note, Nehru and Govt. during 1950s (in spite of the so called opposition from Prasad and others at that time, according to Guha et al. now) implemented changes in the Hindu law (law for Hindus) in the matters of marriage (limiting the number of marriages to only one spouse at a time) and inheritance (e.g. giving equal share of parental property to male and female children).

On the other hand, when did the Govt.(or Nehru) implement such changes, as in the case of Hindu law (for Hindus), in marriage (limiting the number of marriages to only one spouse at a time) and inheritance (giving equal share of parental property to male and female children) in the laws for other communities (e.g. the Muslim law for Muslims, etc.)?

The answer is “never.”

This shows that the real reason for Govt. and Nehru’s failure in implementing the UCC (one law on marriage and inheritance etc. for everyone, irrespective of religion, race, caste and gender) was their inability and unwillingness to propose and bring changes in the laws for other communities (Muslims etc.), except Hindus, and not that Prasad and others had raised questions (during 1940s and 1950s) before the implementation of changes (by Govt. and Nehru) in the Hindu law.

You are welcome to spin this any way you like. The facts speak for themselves.

To put it another way, you win, because those who are impervious to coffee and logic always win.

trofimov wrote:You are welcome to spin this any way you like. The facts speak for themselves.

It's better than ridiculously blaming the RSS and Prasad for the lack of UCC in India

what a boring, I mean fascinating thread. the only thing I found interesting was the story abt seva playing with japanese dollars. sevaji, do you remember if they had lots and lots of banana pictures on them?

Propagandhi711 wrote:what a boring, I mean fascinating thread. the only thing I found interesting was the story abt seva playing with japanese dollars. sevaji, do you remember if they had lots and lots of banana pictures on them?

Interesting question Propaji. No, I don't remember now if there were any banana pictures on Japanese "dollar" notes. One thing I do remember that those notes were larger in size than most of the the Indian currency (Rs.) notes then and also quite colorful. Another surprise to me was that the Japanese had used the name "dollar" for their wartime overseas currency instead of their own currency at home (yen probably).

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:what a boring, I mean fascinating thread. the only thing I found interesting was the story abt seva playing with japanese dollars. sevaji, do you remember if they had lots and lots of banana pictures on them?

Interesting question Propaji. No, I don't remember now if there were any banana pictures on Japanese "dollar" notes. One thing I do remember that those notes were larger in size than most of the the Indian currency (Rs.) notes then and also quite colorful. Another surprise to me was that the Japanese had used the name "dollar" for their wartime overseas currency instead of their own currency at home (yen probably).

I ask because I've seen those wartime "dollars" the devious slopes issued for their short lived empire...I dont know how those dollars came into my grandfather's possession but I did see them and yes they were colorful and filled with images of banana trees.