> > > > Poverty, inferiority complex among lot of Indians(colonial
> > > > slave mentality) and religious conflict(this insect called Pakistan
> > > > which constantly bites India and regresses its progress in all domains
> > > > is a direct product of British invasion) are all a result of British
> > > > invasion.
> > > Both Pakistan and India owe their conglomeration to the British. And a
> > > certain paedophile had more to do with the divide than the Indians would
> > > like to admit.
> > I never knew Jinnah was a paedophile!! Now the Pakistanis
> > on this newsgroup will be incensed like hell!! Anyways,
> > Jinnah was a pork-eating Muslim from Bombay (now
> > Mumbai); the exact opposite of the dhoti-clad highly
> > religious Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. That maybe
> > the reason why Jinnah never trusted Gandhi and the
> > Congress' intentions.
> It might also have been that he was power-hungry, suffering from
> tuberculosis from the mid-1940s onwards, and jealous of Nehru (who
> didn't help matters by jilting Jinnah at every opportunity). Was Gandhi
> a saint? No, probably not, and one might question how much
> applicability principles like non-*** have when the enemy isn't
> willing to budge, as Mandela did and does in his autobiography.
Gandhi pretty well put the idea of non-*** resistance on the map.
Talk of him being a paedophile (by Vig) seems ludicrous. Muhammad is a
much better candidate. For generations in India, child marriages were
common. To accuse Gandhi of paedophilia for merely having children warm
his body? Bizarre.
> There is a pretty convincing thesis that Gandhi didn't have a lot to do
> with independence anyway, and that the British didn't have the economic
> might to sustain an empire after WW2 and the toll it took of Britain.
There is a lot of substance to that argument, I think. It no longer
made economic sense to have a large, disparate, and more and more
rebellious empire. The US created an empire within, a massive discrete
economic union, which chose to be American because they wanted to be.
Imperial possessions had increasingly become economic albatrosses. Now
multinationals from rich countries can exploit poor workers and
countries without having a second thought for building up
infrastructure, health, education.
Obviously Britain's objective in India wasn't a primarily philanthropic
one (or Africa), but because it proclaimed itself as benign it at least
had to go through the motions of spending money on its imperial
subjects in less developed countries.
> They were always going to leave for economic reasons. Gandhi and Nehru
> gave them a m***imperative, and with Jinnah, influenced the shape of
> independent India and Pakistan. If Nehru had been more conciliatory, we
> might not have had Pakistan. If the British hadn't sent an idiot like
> Radcliffe to draw the maps of modern India and Pakistan, problems might
> have been averted and they may have not. If Mountbatten hadn't been
> influenced by his wife, to be so vehemently pro-Indian, modern
> relations between India and Pakistan may have been very different.
> (Jinnah, after all, kept his house in Bombay, expecting to flit between
> India and Pakistan at will. Maybe he was naive, maybe other factors
> were beyond his control.)
Ultimately, though the cost in human terms was high, it seems that
partition ultimately freed India from the baggage associated with past
imperial domination of foreign powers, namely the Arabs and Mughals.
And just as a sidepoint, according to some sources, the genocides
inflicted on India by the Arabs and the Turko/Mongols make what the
British did at times look like an absolute picnic. The 1st few decades
of Islamic rule and the incursions of Timur are claimed by some to have
cost 100 million+.
> But the problems of partition go far deeper than these simplistic
> analyses - as is anything bordering on an intelligent discussion of
> what the Mughals did and didn't do for India (like hell they united
> most of India - the Portuguese were still in Goa, and the French in
> Pondicherry, until well after the Mughals had been turfed out),
It seems to be assumed that the Mughals were Indian. Of course, they
were not. They became gradually assimilated more and more, just like
the Manchus (and of course, their kin the Yuan in China). But the fact
remains that they were imperialistic foreigners.
Not that Goa and Pondicherry were that significant in the overall
scheme of things :-) but there were significant portions of the country
outside Mughal control. But of course, like any other empires, the
Mughal empire was created by the sword, and it remains debatable
whether the decadent Mughal empire posed any more of a threat to
British domination than the individual states.
> British contribution or lack thereof to India (when are we getting
> their crown jewels back?), and the Maratha/Sikh empires. What beggars
> belief most of all is that anyone seems to think that this will be
> achieved in a discussion on rsc. With Shridhar.
Have you heard of the thugees you dork?