INDIA-ROYALTY-L Archives

Archiver > INDIA-ROYALTY > 2007-10 > 1191389009


From: "Allen Bahn" <>
Subject: Re: [INDIA-ROYALTY] Fwd: Re: Marwar folklore
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 01:23:29 -0400
References: <203710.76323.qm@web94308.mail.in2.yahoo.com>


dear Mr. Malwade,
I inhreted from my father a very deep and life long love for india and it's
very rich history.My father spent most of his life in the service of The
king of England.He was apolitical ajent for 40 years starting in the
year1924.
I would like to brig some ideas to your very excellent observations.
1.Winston churchill was not very much liked by his tory party . They
regarded him as a very unstable person.England had paid a very high price
for ww1. She had lost lot of her best people like scientist Rutherford.The
political interest of British was in mentaining colonial empire and not get
involved with europe.Hitler wanted to buy time so that he could consolidate
his military conquest of austria,checoslavia and part of poland. He had
already signed a no war treaty with ussr to devide poland.
In the usa there was a great reluctance to get involved with another war in
europe.Winston churchill could see through both stalin and hitler as two
unprincipled people .Winston churchill was the war time leader of a colation
of tories,labor and liberal party.After the war he was put out of the
office.
As a part of US aid in the ww2 us president insisted that UK governament
sign an atlantic charter. This charter stated that as a condition of
finacial and war material aid Uk aggree to two conditions.
(a) Uk governament give military bases in uk and Bermuda to the Us
governament.
(b) Uk governament aggree to grant freedom to it's colonies.
There was very great reluctance to these conditions but Mr Churchill signed
the treaty.USA still was neutral and only joined the war after attack on
Pearl harbour on Dec 7 1941.
After the world 2 war us governament refused to grant Marshall Aid
reconstruction funds to UK unless the process of decolonisation was started.
Yes Mr Gandhi,Nehru, Bose Rajagoplachari,Vb Patel,Mr Gobid panth, Khan
Abdul Gafar Khan ,Rajendra prasad and others were all great leaders .The
sacrifices made by these leaders and indian people in general were very
great.I have gread admiration for all of them. I also had a good fortune to
meet with them when tthe indipendence of India was being discussed.This in
my opinion was the golden time of indian political leadership.
India was well on way to indipendence.The world war 2 just accelrated the
process.
The tactical decession by the indian national congress was a blunder.It had
no effect on the war effort in India.The princely states gave full support
to the war effort and the Indian army ,airforce and Navy gave a good
performance.Mr. Jinah who had no political powerbase sided with the war
effort while congress opposed it. This was contrary to world war 1 when Mr
Gandhi was actually helping recruitment of armed forces for British.Congress
had little choice because of the Jalliawalla masacre in the holly city of
Amritsar.
This non cooperation by congress resulted in an unusually strong and
illegal help by english officers and adminstrators to muslim league.I
personally witnessed inerference by english officers in rigging up elections
in NWFP,Syleht.That part of history is for the english political civil
sevice to live with.
It is true that the mutiny by indian Navy was the last straw that accelrated
the departure of British from India. They would have left sooner or latter.
There were miss calculations on both sides, British and Congress.The two
nations have a long history and i believe a great future.
The institutios created by British willserve India well as it takes it"s
position in the world economic and political stage.
I am very optimistic about the future of India. India and not china or
Russia is amodel for other developing nations to study.For all the problems
India has it has hallmarks of a free society. These are Free speech,Elected
governament,Indipendent courts,non interfaring defence services.
India also has a vibrant free press and free economy.
I hope i have not offended any one . I offer my appolagies in advance if i
have inadvertently hurt any feelings.
Allen Bahn
----- Original Message -----
From: "hirojirao patankar" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: [INDIA-ROYALTY] Fwd: Re: Marwar folklore




abhijit malwade <> wrote: Dear Avinash,

Please don't believe in the BBC documentary. Do you
really think that whatever Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and
Netaji Bose were of no use?? Only a fool and ignorant
will believe this. I have done research in this area
and here are few reasons why British left the India.

1. The 2nd world war the mighty blow to the British
Empire. It scared them till the spine. if you studied
the history, you will find that London was never
harmed in any war, but in the 2nd world war, German
planes bombarded London for many months and destroy
1/3 of city, and also the superiority complex of
British. (Just like ameicans felt after 9-11 attacks).
British were no match to the aggressive Nazi Germany
which had certain Ideology. Only timely American and
allied help saved British (except Gen.Montgomery's
exceptional bravery in defeating General Romell in
North Africa)

2. Another most important reason why British left
India was Indian army. 90,000 Indian soldiers,who took
oath to remain faithful to the British crown, joined
the Indian National Army. so far British never
experienced this type of mutiny in the Indian army .
(They won the war of independence in 1857 with the
help of Indian soldiers.) In 1946, when Royal Indian
navy mutinied against British and supported by Royal
Indian air force, army and police. British were
unable to tackle the situation and without army never
imagined to continue ruling India.

3. After Mahatma Gandhi's call of "Do or die" Indians
retaliation increased even more in the form of strike,
satyagraha, this is the first time the "leaderless"
Indians (because all the leaders were put into jail by
gov) continue the movement by themselves. again a new
thing for British. Govt was unable to run it machinery
due to strikes, attacks on post offices, police
stations, govt buildings, railway stations.

4. Last but not the least was the political change in
the England. Clement Attlee, of Labor party replaced
Winston Churchill the imperialist. Labor party was
sympathizer of democracy and of India. He supported
Indian independence and with his effort India achieved
her independence.

Mountbatten was not in India to see "all British leave
India safely" it is somewhat strange statement.
Indians never killed any British only because he was
British. no common indian would have ever dreamed to
kill their "memsab" and "saab" because they were
British. They were very much safe in India on that day
and till today.

So the final conclusion is that, British left India
due to 2nd world war, mutiny in the Indian Army, more
agitation and protest by common Indian and by govt
change in the England.

regards
abhijit

There is lot of truth in this .
Patankar
1st 2007


____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message




---------------------------------
Forgot the famous last words? Access your message archive online. Click
here.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: