- Sep 2015
I don't see what your problem is? You seem suspicious and pedantic, and in a muddle in your last paragraph. It was pugsvil and Larry that said i was 'wrong'. And now you! I thought we were having a laugh. I thought it was funny anyway.Dreuxeng, I find your last few posts vague with little logic or reasoning behind them. I can not glean what arguments you are trying to make.
Pugsville said, "The Labour Party pretty much favour indepednce for India in the 1930s."
To which you responded, No, "(see Government of India Act 1919)."
which suggested to me that Britain favored Indian independence as early as 1919. Except I don't see independence in the 1919 Act. It's about responsible rule for India within the British Empire.
Pugsville seems not to have gleaned any thrust to your arguments either because in post #117 he asked you "How am I wrong? What historical knowledge am I missing?" which you refused to answer.
If you want to have a productive conversation I suggest you be more specific than "Nope," "No, you are [wrong]," "... you are wrong again." and don't tell someone to look it up a second time if after the first time they tell you they can't find what you're trying to point them to. What key details are Pugsville supposed to find in the 1919 Act? I don't know either. A "quote" citing chapter and verse from the 1919 Act might be helpful.
But nonetheless: A simple observation of the wiki page for the Government of India Act 1919 has the following quote from just the 2nd paragraph of the page:
"The Acts of 1773 and 1784 were designed to establish a regular system of administration and justice under the Honourable East India Company. The Act of 1833 opened the door for Indians to public office and employment. The Act of 1858 transferred the administration from the Company to the Crown and laid the foundations of public life which exist in India to-day. The Act of 1861 sowed the seed of representative institutions, and the seed was quickened into life by the Act of 1909. The Act which has now become law entrusts the elected representative of the people with a definite share in the Government and points the way to full responsible Government hereafter."
Thus there is the diarchy arrangement of the 1919 Act for the Provincial governments, read: 'a definite share in the Government'; and then there is the following point, beginning, "and..." (see in bold), which is subsequently followed by the key word "full". Thus, in other words, having established diarchic rule in the Provinces, the way to full government hereafter implies not just diarchic rule, but full rule. And indeed this is what duly occurred, via the 1935 Act, for the Provinces.
And that therefore regardless of whether the Labour party favoured independence for India, it is the British Government, via Act of Parliament, that favoured independence for India, from 1919 onwards thereby - at some appropriate time and at some arrived at point, "hereafter". "responsible Government" implies Dominion status, but clearly as with Australia and New Zealand they may choose to sever even that very slight connection - of having a representative of the imperial government, with very limited powers as part of the constitution - entirely, and quite easily! And they might think as much, would they not...
From his wiki page: 'Subhas Chandra Bose (23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945) was an Indian nationalist whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India, but whose attempt during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a troubled legacy.'from post 104: The preamble to the Independence of India Act passed by the post-WW II Labour government clearly states that Britain cannot hold down India any longer. One of the many factors which led to this was Bose's thrust during WW II into India apart from Gandhiji's intensive agitation and several terrorist acts like the raid on Chittagong armoury by Surya Sen, naval mutiny and so on.
I read your previous statements post Bose military operations as the decisive moment, not one of several factors,
The Labour Party pretty much favour indepednce for India in the 1930s.
So the decisive moment was not, according to pugsville, Bose's actions during WWII but in fact the Labour Party of the U.K. in the 1930s.
Which was clearly not remotely the case, and he probably knows that...
And more importantly your post is a mild slur, that attempts to discredit and marginalise, not really just me, but my line of discussion, understanding, and opinion; and by contrast showing favour to pugsvils line of discussion and opinion. And that cannot be the job of a moderator. If someone is not overly good at discussion, it is hardly decent and reasonable to try and shame them.
I'm pretty well embarrassed really.