Gandhi: Your assessment of his character & contribution to winning Indian Independence?

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
Yeah, IMHO, Nehru should have either let Pakistan have the Muslim-majority parts of Kashmir or else expel Pakistan from all of Kashmir (rather than prematurely asking the UN for a ceasefire) and then hold a plebiscite there. India isn't going to be able to claim that the Maharjah's signature on Kashmir's Instrument of Accession should be decisive when it insisted on popular sovereignty in both Hyderabad and Junagadh.
We do all kind of things in politics. They say all is fair in love and war. But the fact is that Pakistan did not move its forces back as was stipulated in the UN resolution. Not only the Maharaja signed but also the leader of the people at that time (Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah). They begged us to come and we did not go in before the accession was signed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rvsakhadeo

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
What gives you the idea that Dalits "love the British so much"?
They are misguided, by missionaries who want to take advantage of their ignorance, and by politicians who have fattened on their support but have never benefited them. They are not thinking straight. It is for that reason that Rajiv Gandhi insisted on reservations by caste and not by economic situation. We now have a government who would like to dump caste differences and give benefits based on economic situation, not just to Hindus but Christians and Muslims as well. Will the OBC and dalits politicians agree?
 
Last edited:

rvsakhadeo

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
9,212
India
They are misguided, by missionaries who want to take advantage of their ignorance, and by politicians who have fattened on their support but have never benefited them. They are not thinking straight. It is for that reason that Rajiv Gandhi insisted on reservations by caste and not by economic situation. We now have a government who would like to dump caste differences and give benefits based on economic situation, not just to Hindus but Christians and Muslims as well. Will the OBC and dalits politicians agree?
For your information, the Dalits of Maharashtra and surrounding areas celebrate a victory of the mixed British and Dalit Infantry of the East India Company over the troops of Brahmin Peshwa at Koregaon village on the Bhima river sometime in eighteen twenties. And their annual celebration recently caused a fight which led to grievous injuries among both sides and has brought the Dalits-other castes divide into stark relief.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,781
USA
Its a fact that lower caste Shudras, Dalits and Christian converts wax eloquent about how great British rule was. I observed this many times in real life.

They think British were anti caste sytem because they were Christian, but the fact is the British shipped large number of Shudras and Dalits as indentured labor to their colonies such as Trinidad.

Also, it is a well known fact that the British Indian Army was the backbone of the empire.
They nearly lost India in 1857 when over 6,000 Europeans were killed in a span of few days.

What makes you so sure that the same army, now even more well oiled thanks to fighting two world wars could not have revolted again and overthrown British rule?
Brahmins and other high castes happily joined and formed the bulk of the British army in India, helping British to conquer India, so they were willing participants of the British conquest. They also formed the bulk of the civil administration under the British, so they also helped the British in ruling India. Hindu high castes were in cahoots with the British all along.

Those Indians who went as indentured labor did so willingly to improve their lives. British never forced them to go.

The fact of history is that British prevailed in 1857, not only to come back even more stronger, but also to expand British India even further afterwards.

The fact of history also is that native Indian army didn't kick out the British for India to get its independence. To think otherwise would be just nationalistic fantasy.
 
Last edited:

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,781
USA
To display India's martial powers ? Indians do not need to do that. Our army has thrashed Pakistan army in three major and countless minor encounters since 1948.
Pakistan is a minor power compared to India, so defeating it is not really a display of Indian martial prowess. That being said, in the last skirmish between the two countries, it was Pakistan that got to parade a captured Indian pilot in public. Didn't look good for India.

If India really wants to display its martial prowess, conquer back the Pakistani occupied Kashmir, or the Chinese occupied areas.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,856
India
I am not sure about all this at all. Patel died in 1950, too early to have made any difference. Many Indians wanted (still wants) to see the British forcefully ejected out of India, as a display to prove Indian martial prowess. They are the ones behind fabricating stories about Bose and Indian independence militancy. Reality was something different.

After WW1, British knew that their role of ruling India was up. They just played some delay tactics before fixing a date.
Nehru was Gandhi's choice, not that of the party. Nehru is often blamed for blunder about Kashmir and China. If Maharaja's kingdom was attacked by Pakistanis he was under pressure and Srinagar was about to fall to Pashtun tribesmen, why was there a need of giving Article 370 to Kashmir, the mother of all problems in Kashmir. Patel was wary of China since the beginning. After Patel death, nobody could really guess who could have been his successor.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rvsakhadeo

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,856
India
Patel died in 1950 so at least India got a much longer rule with Nehru. That said, though, he certainly blundered in his Chinese policy.

As for Bose, what do you think that he would have thought about the partition of India had he lived?
Bose would have been against partition, but he wouldn't be able to stop the partition because the reality was Muslims wanted it.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
Brahmins and other high castes happily joined and formed the bulk of the British army in India, helping British to conquer India, so they were willing participants of the British conquest. They also formed the bulk of the civil administration under the British, so they also helped the British in ruling India. Hindu high castes were in cahoots with the British all along.
Why just brahmins? Everybody joined the British. Hindus, sikhs, Muslims. It was the question of livelihood. I am sure, Dalits also were recruited by the British - Mahars and Madras Sappers, for example. Just as they are doing even now. Kings and Nawabs joined the Delhi Durbar.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
That being said, in the last skirmish between the two countries, it was Pakistan that got to parade a captured Indian pilot in public. Didn't look good for India.
If India really wants to display its martial prowess, conquer back the Pakistani occupied Kashmir, or the Chinese occupied areas.
It happens in wars. Nothing special about it. In the Bangladesh war, 93,000 Pakistani soliders and officers surrendered to Indian forces. And good that Pakistan returned the pilot, otherwise there might have been action from the Indian side.
Perhaps we will not need a war to get POK. Be patient. Just as the Dynasty Congress is imploding, Pakistan also may implode. :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rvsakhadeo