INDIA-ROYALTY-L Archives

Archiver > INDIA-ROYALTY > 2007-10 > 1191399215


From: "Epicure" <>
Subject: [INDIA-ROYALTY] Not Marwar folklore, but British role and India,the subject was wrong.
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:43:35 +0530
References: <203710.76323.qm@web94308.mail.in2.yahoo.com><002101c8057d$88864190$6b228c45@spring>


Mr Bahn has described the political situation of India and UK at that point
in time.It seems he has consciously stopped short of saying that the
British policy (copied in undiluted form by Mr. M.K.Gandhi, Pt.J.N.Nehru &
Co.) of appeasement lead to the WW-II. The same policy adapted by the
Congress lead to the truncation of India!
The British, in a very planned manner, also sowed the seeds of separation in
various section of the Indian society.Surprisingly all the leaders seem to
have got so blinded by the sight of Self-rule in close vicinity that they
did not utter a single word of any observation, leave aside a comment, on
the following four, to begin with:

1. The SGPC act of 1925? This very act was, and still is, a precursor to
the demand of Khalistan. In 1931 the British even lent the services of one
Mr. M.A. Macauliffe to draw 'a code to regulate individual and corporate
life of Sikhs' to a committee, convened by Sh. Teja Singh.The sole purpose
of this committee was to distance Sikhs from Hindus, and not Muslims, who
caused the need of creation of an army of dedicated 'Shishyas' to Sh.Gobind
Rai. Why didn't anyone speak about this then? There is no question of
anybody speaking about it now, lest they hurt the Sikh sentiments!
2. The Govt. of India Burma act of 1930? What was the need of separating
Burma from India? Did any one even squeak a protest? Why?
3. What caused the displeasure between British and Maharaja Hari Singh of
J&K? And what caused Pt. J.N.Nehru to continue that displeasure to the
extent that he(Nehru) left a bleeding cancer on the truncated body of India
in shape of that state?
4. What about the Indian suzerainty in Laddakh?
I would request Mr. Bahn to kindly divulge any or what ever information he
has on these issues, even if it is to some one's displeasure, some more
FACTS that he has at his disposal need to come out, at least for the sake of
posterity to which we all owe a responsibility of providing the truth.

In a personal mail earlier, I had also requested Mr. Bahn to share his trove
of information and pictures with me. Unfortunately he chose not to respond
to that mail? I do hope he would kindly respond to this?
God bless!
SHYAM


----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Bahn" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [INDIA-ROYALTY] Fwd: Re: Marwar folklore


> 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
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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: