Sunday, September 4, 2011

Did we really ‘achieve’ Independence?


Did we really ‘achieve’ Independence?


We have been taught that India 'achieved ' independence in 1947 from a very peaceful and nonviolent struggle led by Gandhi himself. Can this be questioned? Were there other major factors which influenced the British Empire to grant the independence? Let us go through a series of events which in my view led to the independence of India.

The State of the British empire--



On the 22nd of January 1901, with the death of Queen Victoria came to an end an era of British expansionism and which was called 'Victorian Era'. It was in this era the British Empire was called an empire where the sun never set. Their control extended from Canada to Australia. Victoria was the icon of this majestic empire and with her death the empire started losing its sheen. She has been credited to have influenced the govt policies in a positive manner though officially the power of the British monarch are limited. In fact she was the longest reigning British monarch. The British Empire was at its height when the highly revered and iconic Queen died, even her anniversaries were celebrated as if they were the national festivals. With her death the empire sort of lost a driving force. The name Victoria itself was synonymous to supremacy. But the British Empire no longer had such a driving force.

                                                                  King  Edward VII

                                                                 King George V

After the death of the Queen Victoria, the British throne was succeeded by her son Edward VII. He was said to be an able diplomat and an administrator. It was in his time the erstwhile colonies of Australia and Canada got their dominion status. Though he could have been an able king, he dint live long, his reign came to an end by 1910 due to his ill health he died on 6th of May 1910.King Edward had a vision of a united Europe and had formed very strong relationship with France and other major European power though his relation with his own cousin, Kaiser William II of Germany was not a cordial one. At the turn of the century when the queen died the world was getting ready for a dozen new things starting with ideas like communism and socialism to the modernization of the military. King Edward even from the days when he used to be the Prince of Wales and used to be representative of the queen had very good relations with the American nations of Canada and USA though Canada was its own colony it had rose in importance. 
After the death of the King Edward his son King George V succeeded to the throne of British Empire. After the end of his father’s short lived reign he looked to expand his kingdom rigorously. His period saw the rise of socialism, communism, fascism, Irish republicanism, and the Indian independence movement and most importantly the First World War took place in his period. The bitter relation with the German king Kaiser William II continued in his reign .  George had inherited the throne in very turbulent times.  As he inherited an empire which spanned from India to Canada he to had get a grip of this mammoth empire very fast as the world was changing with every second. But he was said to be suffering from ill health and his last days were not very peaceful.

                                                           Kaiser Wilhelm II 


First World War
First World War started in 1914, due to the murder of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria on the streets of Skopje. To take revenge Austria declared was against Serbia, since Serbia was supported by Turkey, Turkey got involved in the war and this triggered a chain of declaration of war by major powers of Europe against their respective emeries to help their respective friends. The same way British Empire got involved by declaring war against Germany which had declared war on France.  This is how the British Empire got embroiled in the First World War.  
The war ended in 1918; of course the British Empire was one of the victors as they were one of the allied powers. If you see the events of the war in detail it’s the US forces which saved the day for British as the British army had lost its steam in Europe. In the later part of the war the Germans did a suicidal act by attacking the US merchant ships which compelled Woodrow Wilson to declare war on Germany and enter the war on the side of triple alliance.  The triple alliance was strengthened further with the support of the powerful USA.
The war of course ended with the victory of Triple alliance but it had taken a heavy toll on all the countries in the war including the victors. Britain’s army was wiped out and it was rescued by the Americans.  The war had a devastating effect on the economies of the all the countries. It took several years for them to recover from the slum.
The war also saw the collapse of 4 of the most prominent imperialist monarchy of Europe, the German empire was broken up and distributed piece by piece among the victors, the Austro-Hungarian empire which was very powerful and influential in the beginning of the war was broken up into two states- Austria and Hungary, Russian monarchy lost out to the communists before the end of the war in 1917 and they withdrew from the war, Turkey did no better and it transformed into a republic. So after war the most powerful monarchies of Europe seized to exist and became republics. So England was the lone powerful imperialistic monarchy in Europe.  This added pressure had its impact on diminishing popularity of the British monarch.
During the time of war the empire was desperate for recruits and it left no stone unturned to get them, seeing this the Indian nationalists thought of taking advantage of this desperate situation. They thought by supporting the empire they are going to the some concession from the British parliament as a reward for the wartime help.  The British parliament vowed a lot to Indian princes for their contribution in fact  a major part of the British army was from the Indian subcontinent.  On the other hand the Indian nationalist wanted to capitalize on the situation and put more pressure on the British parliament.  The British parliament was very quick to notice a storm brewing so to ease the tension in the subcontinent they passed government of India act. This act was valid for only 10 years until 1929. It expanded the participation of Indians in the working of the government.  That means a diarchy system of government where Indians were allowed to control some aspect of the state; they called this as the transferred list as the power to control these was transferred to Indians at the provincial level. But still most of the provinces where they had a direct rule were under the viceroy. This was a major dent to the imperialism of the British Empire as it was giving away half of the rule to the Indian hands. This clearly showed that the British dint wants direct face off after the dreadful war so they were ready to compromise and rebuild their economy which was swept of its feet by the war.



The great depression
The great depression in the early 1930s saw the economic downturn of the western economies.  In this period UK suffered a lot, it brought the people to the streets due to the job loss. The government was dumbfounded. It took nearly a decade to recover from the downturn. UK definitely couldn’t afford to face one a large scale revolt so the British parliament passes the Government of India act of 1935. Under this act the parliament abolished the diarchy system and. It gave British India a large amount of autonomy and formed federation of India but uniting the princely states and the other provinces. This showed clearly that the British parliament reduce the administrative burden of India due to the economic conditions back home. It slowly started handing over the administration to the native hands and remains involved only for the taxes which could help its economic situation. On the other hand the wanted to cool the Indian nationalists by giving them something to snack on.

                                                        Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini 


                                                         The blitz - World War II, London 
                                               The fall of Singapore to the Japanese-1942


The Second World War
The Second World War started with Hitler declaring war on Poland and invading it. It dint take the other countries to declare war on each other. The same way they had dome in the First World War.  In the beginning of the war the axis power had all the advantage and they seem to be winning the war. On 7th Sept. 1940 Germany started the strategic bombing of Brittan. This went on nearly for a year. In these raids London the power center of the empire upon which sun never set, was now burning, the entire population of London went underground and took shelter in the underground train station and tunnels. Though the raids didn’t achieve their purpose and was a failure on part of the Germans, it showed that the Empire had lost its sheen.  This showed that the so called British Empire was no longer supreme or undefeatable. Later the Germans bought brought on their own downfall by invading Russia that too in the winter. At the same time the empire was losing its grip over its eastern strongholds too. It lost Singapore and Hong Kong to the Japan. The fall of Singapore showed that it was the dusk of the British supremacy in the east.  Japan committed one more blunder by bombing pearl harbor which brought in USA on the side of the allied power, which went on to prove suicidal as the axis power had almost won the war until the USA joined the allied forces. Of course the allied powers won the war but it was USA which saved the day for them and in fact it’s the USA which retook the Europe for the allies powers, the army of the British empire was  reduces to less than half. In this situation it clearly showed that the empire was not capable of managing the far off colonies so after the Second World War one by one most the overseas colonies declared independence. India was one of the colonies.
                                           Gandhi's arrest led to Quit India movement in 1942
The British Empire owed a lot to India and the Indian princely states for their support in the desperate times of war. The British Empire was reduced to ashes. The empire was no longer supreme. After the war the world order changing and the colonization was being antagonized. They had set up a world governing body called United Nations with the objective of the securing the rights of downtrodden countries. Meanwhile in India the quit India movement had shook the viceroy, they knew they couldn’t take any more of the pressure from the Nationalist that too when the empire itself was burning. So they had no choice but to grant the Independence.  




Now how fair is it to say that we as Indians achieved the independence from the British Empire which was on its knees, its economy was in turmoil, its capital burning and had to be rescued by one of its former colonies? 

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Operation Blue Star

In 1984, Indra Gandhi ordered the military to flush out the Khalisthan terrorists from the golden temple at Amritsar. This operation was followed by a long debate on whether the operation was inevitable or was there a chance for negotiation with the terrorists as the operation left a large number of civilians dead.
There is a difference of opinion about the operation but let us listen to the commander who led operation, General Kuldip Singh Brar.

                                                                     Part 1

                                                                         Part 2


Friday, July 29, 2011

How practical was Panchasheel policy

Panchsheel was the name of the foreign policy adopted by India soon after the independence.  It was actually a brain child of the First Prime Minister of India Pandith Jawaharlal Nehru. Later It was the  base of  Sino Indian treaty of 1954 and also became the core ideology behind the Non alignment  movement.

Panchasheel is a foreign policy formed by 5 main ideals. Its main aim was to abstain from the then ongoing cold war between the two blocs and to be maintain a friendly neighboorhood. But as it turned out the policy was a bit idealistic. The following are the five ideals
  • Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty,
  • Mutual non-aggression,
  • Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs,
  • Equality and mutual benefit, and
  • Peaceful co-existence.
If we examine all the of the points carefully, we will find that they are not exactly realistic 
When it says respect for each other's territorial integrity its hard to imagine such a situation as it takes generations to resolve disputes between nations. If these disputes take generation to resolve then it will take equally long time to establish a truat without which the respect cant be imagined.  
 If there is a dispute there is obviously a aggression. There is no way that there is a dispute and there wont be an aggression. The nations will try every thing to settle dispute in their own favor, then why will they not be aggressive. 
When two nations have a dispute or a rivalry, they will do anything to serve their purpose. They can go to any extent to see their rival disintegrate as it will be in their interest. So to meet these goals they will never abstain from fueling each other's internal problems. 
The best term which can be closely associated with idealism is equality, in the real world two nations can never be equal as their resources are not equally distributed which is natural. So almost all countries bargain hard for their own benefit why will the nation pitch  for mutual benefit when they have their own interests.  
The peaceful co existence is nothing but a dream as there can never be peace between countries when there are disputes, and every nation tries to use what means they could to get a maximum out of the dispute. So in this case how can nations function peacefully. 

When it comes to serving their interests nations cant stick to a laid plan, they have to act according as the  situations demands. IF a nation tries to stick to a policy and not act according to the change in situation then it  will end up nowhere.  

Friday, January 14, 2011

Credit crisis


Check out this very well presented video on Credit Crisis


Part 1

Part 2

Friday, December 10, 2010

Is India really poor

We often keep hearing that India is still a developing country and the people are very poor ........etc...
At the same time we also see the so called spiritual and religious Muthas building temple of crores of rupees,
governments granting money to these institution like flowing water.
Cant the government use this money in a better way. For an instance, there will be a magnificent temple being built but even the road which leads to this temple will be unbearable.  Ho is that a temple is more important than a so called sacred temple.
On this these so called sacred Muthas are exempted from all sorts of taxes. That means it is obvious that these mathas will be the save haven for all the unaccounted money of big political Honchos.
The role of these mathas in politics, which is evident in the present state of govt, is totally unjustified and of no relevance. What does so called spiritual gurus have to do in the dirty game of politics?
Muthas were established mainly to dispense education and serve the people but today they have become the safety locker for all the corrupt politicians.
This money which is concentrated in mathas can really matter a lot to the life of the people and a boast to the Indian economic infrastructure. Why should it be used for some good looking infrastructure which doesn't matter an inch to the ground level economic development of India?

Dont you think these Muthas are the first place to be raided  and audited, they may be even doing something for the local populace by free food distribution but how much of these so called sacred activities account in all the money garnered from the rich and corrupt politicians. This muthas gives the politician a safe locked for all the misdeeds they commit when they come to power.

In my opinion officers like the Lokayukta should raid these Muthas first.
 

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Is India right in talking against racial discrimination



There has been a lot of media hype about the racial attacks on Indians mainly in Australia. Media blew up the issue saying Australian are racially motivated. But we as Indian, are we right in even complaining against the discrimination when there is so much of discrimination among ourselves interns of castes and religion.
It is a known fact that Indian has a long tradition of caste discrimination. The discrimination is to such an extent that so called dalit are not even allowed to step into the colonies of the so called upper castes. The very problem of naxalism is dogging India just because of this discrimination. When we have such a big problem on our lap, is it right to talk about the discrimination to a rich brat abroad who faced the heat for some reason which is not even clear.
When it comes to actually racism India is no better. So i would like to say this there is no point in talking against something which India has been practicing for centuries. If the caste-ism is not racism then why people are denied houses for rent just because they are of different caste. When ever there is a communal problem these dalits are made scapegoats by training them to attack others and if you see the death tool of dalits and other castes in these kind of violences, the no of deaths in the   so called upper classes are almost nil when compared to Dalits. They are even offered water in the coconut shells. That is the extent so discrimination we have. Isn't this racism?
Not only the casteism but also the discriminating and contempt towards the people of different region is very distressing to see. When the tourist come from the west and other countries people wont think of anything other than robing them.
So we have to acknowledge that racism is present even in India also and there is no point in complaining about the discrimination we face outside as we will be getting the same treatment what we have netted out to our own people. .....

Monday, November 1, 2010

Kashmir, too far on a wrong track



Let me just remind you the times when Hindi was declared the national language and there were riots in states of Tamil nadu and Kerala. The situation was so tense that they were even ready to ask for a different nation but they recovered their sanity and looked in the future, now Tamil nadu is on of the most industrialized state and Chennai is one os the worlds fastest growing cities.
The reason why i mentioned this is to point out the similarities between the two regions and situations. the root cause of the Kashmir situation is similar to that of the problems which were faced by Tamil nadu. I wanted o point out the equal amount of potential in both the regions. So why should they spoil their future by creating such nuisance and listening to the meaningless calls of Pakistan for so called Azad Kashmir. In my point of view they should aim to exploit their potential in the fields tourism through which they can become economically stronger like the states of Goa which wholly depends upon tourism and has a strong economy too. By organizing strikes or bundhs they are loosing out on their own business and they are the who is losing out on their jobs. Instead of being mislead by the likes of LeT or Pakistan they should use their use their conscience.
I strongly believe that they should keep aside the pointless things like religion and culture and look for a better and economically stronger future as at the end of the day thats what matter, it really doesn't matter whether the majority of the population is Hindu or Muslim.
My only question is that can Pakistan or Kashmir's independent govt give better administration and economic development? Because thats what really matters.