How Churchill 'starved' India

[Water Car Engineer]

British rule was India's national humiliation.

 

[paritosh]

U talked about Jallianwala massacre.
But u must remember thats its not police ,but army contingent who under command of General Dyer that fired up on the gathering.Those were army men who are only following an order to act obviously a horrific brutality when General Dyergave the order
to fire .Its General Dyer who was sole responsible for the massacre.

alright army...not the point...
Murdering a man takes some part of you with the guy you kill...people in the army everywhere in the world would tell you how much they cried first time they had to shoot someone...mostly it is an armed enemy...but they all cry...some even shoot themselves...like the CISF constable who killed an innocent man thinking he was a naxal...
Those army men were all Indians and they had unarmed fellow countrymen as their targets...and just one Dyer...they could have at least stood down and not shoot...yet they fired again and again.. and again...it's a psychological insight into how the human mind can be conditioned into doing somebody esle's bidding...serving some ideology you think you know...

 

[deckingraj]

alright army...not the point...
Murdering a man takes some part of you with the guy you kill...people in the army everywhere in the world would tell you how much they cried first time they had to shoot someone...mostly it is an armed enemy...but they all cry...some even shoot themselves...like the CISF constable who killed an innocent man thinking he was a naxal...
Those army men were all Indians and they had unarmed fellow countrymen as their targets...and just one Dyer...they could have at least stood down and not shoot...yet they fired again and again.. and again...it's a psychological insight into how the human mind can be conditioned into doing somebody else's bidding...serving some ideology you think you know...

Yes and no....They fired again and again and this shows they were brainwashed but so is true even today...If our general is going to order, our own Army will kill no matter they are killing an innocent civilians or some armed enemy....This is what Army is, follow the orders of your superior...

Most of the army men who attacked Golden Temple during operation blue star were sikhs, heck even the general was a Sikh himself...So i agree with other poster that it was general dyer...A foot soldier is as good as his superior is, no???

 

[Pratik]

@Patitosh

Moral trepidation isn't highly valued in the army while obeying orders from the superiors.In a colonial set up of British india of jallianwala bagh ,i'm sure there was no scope for such tendencies.

There is less too democratic culture in the army and thats true every where in the world.

As sub Command in the movie "crimson tide" says "They are here preserve democracy not to practice it"

So in the army,but in not police , u are trained to shoot to kill and follow orders to core.Its commanding officer would be judged during the court marshal proceedings if he found misusing his authority.

But yes things are changing because beyond the philosophical and moral point apart ,since the modern commanders are now posses so much fire power , one misjudgment can even lead a nuclear war ,so i assume there is more flexibility practiced among officers ranks in the decision making process.

 

[paritosh]

Yes and no....They fired again and again and this shows they were brainwashed but so is true even today...If our general is going to order, our own Army will kill no matter they are killing an innocent civilians or some armed enemy....This is what Army is, follow the orders of your superior...

Most of the army men who attacked Golden Temple during operation blue star were sikhs, heck even the general was a Sikh himself...So i agree with other poster that it was general dyer...A foot soldier is as good as his superior is, no???

@decking and prateek

I understand the army's sacred command and control chain...
Take the example of the sailors of battleship Potemkin...Mangal Pandey...the Americans in the British army who refused to fight alongside the reds and joined the rebels...
There is a breaking point..it is always there...the army forces the common foot-soldier to bypass his own thinking and follow orders and not question ****...
Had they been asked to shoot at bhagat singh it'd make sense...Jalianwala was unprecedented...it shook the hearts of even the worst of the Brit admins we had at that time...!
Dyer was a stupid f...but what about the Indian troops he had?
were they ready to sell their souls for it?where was there breaking point?
how could they even sleep after that?They shot even after people jumped into the well there...

 

[deckingraj]

@decking and prateek

I understand the army's sacred command and control chain...
Take the example of the sailors of battleship Potemkin...Mangal Pandey...the Americans in the British army who refused to fight alongside the reds and joined the rebels...
There is a breaking point..it is always there...the army forces the common foot-soldier to bypass his own thinking and follow orders and not question ****...
Had they been asked to shoot at bhagat singh it'd make sense...Jalianwala was unprecedented...it shook the hearts of even the worst of the Brit admins we had at that time...!
Dyer was a stupid f...but what about the Indian troops he had?
were they ready to sell their souls for it?where was there breaking point?
how could they even sleep after that?They shot even after people jumped into the well there...

No doubt Jalian wala Bagh was unprecedented and was awful however no punishment was given to General Dyer and ultimately udham singh had to go all over to England to do the needful..this whole saga tells how much britishers were shaken...they choose their false prestige over the lives of 1900 odd innocents, no???

Yes you are very right when you say there are always a breaking point and people revolt but Mangal Pandey and other lots revolted when they felt that their own religion beliefs were threatened, no??? Anyways this is very subjective discussion because it depends from person to person, however revolt in Army is not a simple subject and it often leads to death penalty for the soldier....so not an easy choice, you know...

 

[nightcrawler]

But the truth remains that Indians was no where in the league of challenging British rule in India by force let alone by political dialogue. Congress & ML then started fighting who to share power..So in either way British had to remain there

 

[CONNAN]

it be good if the article says how Churchill 'starved' India and pakistan since it was one country during the time period mentioned

 

[paritosh]

Yes you are very right when you say there are always a breaking point and people revolt but Mangal Pandey and other lots revolted when they felt that their own religion beliefs were threatened, no??? Anyways this is very subjective discussion because it depends from person to person, however revolt in Army is not a simple subject and it often leads to death penalty for the soldier....so not an easy choice, you know...

I'd like to add king Bruce of Scotland's name to it also...
well religion...culture whatever to each his own...
men are like sheep...had their been no Gandhi Nehru...do you think things would have been different?
Gandhi-Nehru functioned as a catalyst to an already displeased Indian population...they did not walk to all the 400 million of our lot for some kind of election prachar...
Civil disobedience was when the civies refused to pay their taxes to a govt they did not recognize...a simple refusal shook the brits...
Gneral Dyer bought a large caliber machine gun to the gates of jalianwala...but couldn't get it inside...when asked whether he would have used the machine gun had the gate allowed it's entry during his court-martial...he said he would have loved to do it!
needless to say...they guy manning the machine gun was an Indian...

it often leads to death penalty for the soldier....so not an easy choice, you know...

standing down an order can never lead to a death penalty...it would lead to a suspension by court martial.
You need to decide where your sanity lies...in following a gruesome irrational order to shoot women and children who committed no crime...who have no chance of getting out alive....
or not following such an inhumane order and stand the f down to a monster...and not follow your martial oath...the latter is easier for some harder for others to follow....

 

[jayron]

So, was it racist of Indians to have tolerated this action by the British? British were Europeans and Colonials Masters, so they are not really to be looked to for moral or ethical behaviour, but in what was unified India, how is it that this famine, this man made tradegy with "security justiciations" as well, went unchallenged by the rest of Indians of every political hue, creed, caste and religion?? Why were Indians unable, even unwilling to challenege the English on this policy?

Sure the English colonials were immoal and unethical, or racist, and the Indians, whether Hindu, or Muslim or whatever, what of them, that they tolerated this?

These handling of famine was the main reason for freedom fighters to arise. They wanted the British to quit India instead of autonomy. I believe the muslim league did not want complete independence.

 

[deckingraj]

Paritosh, as always..precise, clear and a little rigid about his POV...

I'd like to add king Bruce of Scotland's name to it also...
well religion...culture whatever to each his own...
men are like sheep...had their been no Gandhi Nehru...do you think things would have been different?
Gandhi-Nehru functioned as a catalyst to an already displeased Indian population...they did not walk to all the 400 million of our lot for some kind of election prachar...
Civil disobedience was when the civies refused to pay their taxes to a govt they did not recognize...a simple refusal shook the brits...
Gneral Dyer bought a large caliber machine gun to the gates of jalianwala...but couldn't get it inside...when asked whether he would have used the machine gun had the gate allowed it's entry during his court-martial...he said he would have loved to do it!
needless to say...they guy manning the machine gun was an Indian...

You are right men are like sheeps, but that is what we are...one has to be man to steel to do what is called unprecedented, no??? What general dyer did was unprecedented and what soldiers did was what an ordinary man would do...simple, no??? Though what geenral did was disgusting to its core yet what foot soldiers did was what has been taught to them...follow orders....

standing down an order can never lead to a death penalty...it would lead to a suspension by court martial.

In a colonial rule it would have been even worse than death penalty

You need to decide where your sanity lies...in following a gruesome irrational order to shoot women and children who committed no crime...who have no chance of getting out alive....

As said this is very subjective.... Just three months back there were large scale violence in Kashmir in which some 100 odd civilians died...young children, women and men of different age groups....Now i would be eager to understand what you would like to call the soldiers who followed the orders...

or not following such an inhumane order and stand the f down to a monster...and not follow your martial oath...the latter is easier for some harder for others to follow....

Exactly, this is what i want to say...You need to have nerves of steel to disobey orders of your superior and especially when you are under colonial rule....

 

[paritosh]

Paritosh, as always..precise, clear and a little rigid about his POV...

it's bad if I come off as rigid!
I would like to reiterate my point...so that we don't go in circles...
The army troops were wrong in opening fire...and the reason they did so was because they were braindead...

You are right men are like sheeps, but that is what we are...one has to be man to steel to do what is called unprecedented, no??? What general dyer did was unprecedented and what soldiers did was what an ordinary man would do...simple, no??? Though what geenral did was disgusting to its core yet what foot soldiers did was what has been taught to them...follow orders....

Ok...this one is difficult to explain...you know about the inportance of morale in the army right?
about how they have songs in the army...patriotic...religious...humorous songs of the land and the love?
It is very difficult to convert a man....from a normal functional human to a killing machine...
the training teaches you primarily how to survive....and how to shoot...
it doesn't teach you how to kill!
the paradox is that the latter part is the most important part of serving...and has to be learnt through your time served....
there is this term call war hysteria or going Berserk...comes from the ancient viking warriors called Berserkers who used to experience pleasure as they would kill and maim and loot...this feel-good thing while doing all sorts of paap...gave them super-human strength...and clarity of vision(which at that time was going for the kill)some adrenaline rush thing....but their sole motive was to loot and plunder....and not organized battle...(remeber arjun doubting the war..and the whole gita thingy?)
I dont want to make it sound very melodramatic...but then war and killing is as melodramatic as it is romantic...
now come to the jalianwala day...there was nothing romantic...no emotional speech..no songs...no hymns...
just an order to kill innocent people...not rebels...but women children...elderly assembled in such a contraption which had no room for escape...and your own compatriots protesting justly...
they fired...when they should have questioned.

Exactly, this is what i want to say...You need to have nerves of steel to disobey orders of your superior and especially when you are under colonial rule....

general Dyer was court-martialed...the same inquiry commission would have understood had the soldiers stood down the order.

You also mentioned Kashmir...while I can't argue with the Pakistanis based on the facts I know(they'd always say that I a misinformed or am lying)
I will share them with you...
The Kashmiri killings had a diiferent side to them...
police firing has always been our way of dealing with the masses...
it is unjust but is followed with caution...
1st step is a political warning...
declaration of a bandh...curfew...
2nd is a police flag-march...and patrolling...
3rd is a persuasion on the loud-speaker to the people to give up the protest and go home...
4th is a lathi charge....
5th is firing in the air..and the usage of tear gas...and other non-lethal weapons...
6th is a warning to shoot-at-sight....
7th is the bloody shooting..that too with an intention to shoot at the feet of an advancing miscreant and not at the backs...
needless to say the following of these steps are at the mercy of the khakhi people at the spot...
believe me situations in Kashmir have more number of steps than these 7....
the overall shoo-at-sight curfews are a bad thing....but then they have not just happened in Kashmir...
read this...
" no other country are police firings so regular and casual as in India. First, people are provoked to agitate even for the right to exist. Petitions are thrown into the waste paper-basket, peaceful demonstrators are lathi-charged and tear-gassed and when they become angry and start throwing stones at the police they are fired upon. The aim of firing should be to disperse mobs, not to kill unarmed people. About 30,000 people had been killed in police firings in the first 20 years after independence. Lohia made it the main issue of Indian politics. Public meetings were organised and tracts were published by the Socialist Party to educate the government and the people. Every year hundreds die in police firings at all sorts of places – religious gatherings, protest demonstrations outside Parliament and assemblies, people demanding better wages, food and water; farmers demanding protection for their lands and wanting to know why prices crash when their produce reaches the market; students protesting an increase in fees, etc. Yet, no fair enquiry is ever held and the guilty punished. For Lohia it was the colonial mentality of the ruling classes, especially the Nehru family, that was responsible for such a horrifying state of affairs."

from...
Lohia?s Contribution to Socialist Politics in India

 

[deckingraj]

it's bad if I come off as rigid!

It was just for pun, don't take it seriously...

I would like to reiterate my point...so that we don't go in circles...
The army troops were wrong in opening fire...and the reason they did so was because they were braindead...

Nothing to disagree, yes they were brain dead....

Ok...this one is difficult to explain...you know about the inportance of morale in the army right?
about how they have songs in the army...patriotic...religious...humorous songs of the land and the love?
It is very difficult to convert a man....from a normal functional human to a killing machine...
the training teaches you primarily how to survive....and how to shoot...
it doesn't teach you how to kill!
the paradox is that the latter part is the most important part of serving...and has to be learnt through your time served....
there is this term call war hysteria or going Berserk...comes from the ancient viking warriors called Berserkers who used to experience pleasure as they would kill and maim and loot...this feel-good thing while doing all sorts of paap...gave them super-human strength...and clarity of vision(which at that time was going for the kill)some adrenaline rush thing....but their sole motive was to loot and plunder....and not organized battle...(remeber arjun doubting the war..and the whole gita thingy?)
I dont want to make it sound very melodramatic...but then war and killing is as melodramatic as it is romantic...
now come to the jalianwala day...there was nothing romantic...no emotional speech..no songs...no hymns...
just an order to kill innocent people...not rebels...but women children...elderly assembled in such a contraption which had no room for escape...and your own compatriots protesting justly...
they fired...when they should have questioned.

As said before very subjective. My right is your wrong.....The soldiers you are talking about have their loyalty locked with britishers. Innocent people in Jalianwala bagh were just micreants who were viewed as people conspiring to create another revolution like 1857....Mind it, i by no mean is saying they(foot-soldiers) were not at fault but as said revolting in a colonial world against Great Britain is no joke....

general Dyer was court-martialed...the same inquiry commission would have understood had the soldiers stood down the order.

Court martialed, my foot...A blood thirsty general who said that he went there with the pure intent to kill, did not bother to help injured was only court martialed.....As said before British govt gave more importance to their false prestige rather than lives of 1900 innocents...

You also mentioned Kashmir...while I can't argue with the Pakistanis based on the facts I know(they'd always say that I a misinformed or am lying)
I will share them with you...
The Kashmiri killings had a diiferent side to them...
police firing has always been our way of dealing with the masses...
it is unjust but is followed with caution...
1st step is a political warning...
declaration of a bandh...curfew...
2nd is a police flag-march...and patrolling...
3rd is a persuasion on the loud-speaker to the people to give up the protest and go home...
4th is a lathi charge....
5th is firing in the air..and the usage of tear gas...and other non-lethal weapons...
6th is a warning to shoot-at-sight....
7th is the bloody shooting..that too with an intention to shoot at the feet of an advancing miscreant and not at the backs...
needless to say the following of these steps are at the mercy of the khakhi people at the spot...
believe me situations in Kashmir have more number of steps than these 7....
the overall shoo-at-sight curfews are a bad thing....but then they have not just happened in Kashmir...
read this...
" no other country are police firings so regular and casual as in India. First, people are provoked to agitate even for the right to exist. Petitions are thrown into the waste paper-basket, peaceful demonstrators are lathi-charged and tear-gassed and when they become angry and start throwing stones at the police they are fired upon. The aim of firing should be to disperse mobs, not to kill unarmed people. About 30,000 people had been killed in police firings in the first 20 years after independence. Lohia made it the main issue of Indian politics. Public meetings were organised and tracts were published by the Socialist Party to educate the government and the people. Every year hundreds die in police firings at all sorts of places – religious gatherings, protest demonstrations outside Parliament and assemblies, people demanding better wages, food and water; farmers demanding protection for their lands and wanting to know why prices crash when their produce reaches the market; students protesting an increase in fees, etc. Yet, no fair enquiry is ever held and the guilty punished. For Lohia it was the colonial mentality of the ruling classes, especially the Nehru family, that was responsible for such a horrifying state of affairs."

from...
Lohia?s Contribution to Socialist Politics in India

My intent of mentioning Kashmir was to tell you when orders are given army men are supposed to shoot...They are not supposed to think about the repurcusrsions...this is not a part of their training...their part of training is to just follow the orders...this is how army across the world are trained and this is the right way of traning them....Every time you will not get Lord Krishna around Arjun to tell him that war is important and killing is also part of "dharma"...."Bhishma", "Guru draun" etc were also following their "dharma" by fighting against the righteous(pandava's)...So once again very subjective talks....

I would have loved had those soldiers revolted and had given General Dyer a slow and very painful death but then what happened is in front of us...Yes they were wrong but fault lies on general dyer than those foot soldiers and that is why Udham Singh went all the way to England to kill dyer and not those foot soldiers, no???...

 

[paritosh]

As said before very subjective. My right is your wrong.....The soldiers you are talking about have their loyalty locked with britishers. Innocent people in Jalianwala bagh were just micreants who were viewed as people conspiring to create another revolution like 1857....Mind it, i by no mean is saying they(foot-soldiers) were not at fault but as said revolting in a colonial world against Great Britain is no joke....

No...the gathering at Jalianwala was not at all aimed at instilling a rebellion on the lines of 1857!!!
It was in public knowledge...that the demonstration was held to demand the release of two Gandhiwadi leaders...and there was no call-to-arms cry...
There was no warning..there were no shots in the air...
the meeting was perfectly democratic...this part makes all the difference in understanding the nature of Jalianwala....
there is not one thing martial or civilian that can justify jalianwala...the shooting was an act of desperation on the part of Dyer...it was unjust not one man lauded it except the governor of Punjab...who was killed later by Udham singh..(not Dyer)
That is why I mentioned in my previous post had they targeted some of the Krantikari fellows...it'd still make sense...this is beyond justifiable...

Court martialed, my foot...A blood thirsty general who said that he went there with the pure intent to kill, did not bother to help injured was only court martialed.....As said before British govt gave more importance to their false prestige rather than lives of 1900 innocents...

The point is the world saw his actions as unjust...

My intent of mentioning Kashmir was to tell you when orders are given army men are supposed to shoot...They are not supposed to think about the repurcusrsions...this is not a part of their training...their part of training is to just follow the orders...this is how army across the world are trained and this is the right way of traning them....Every time you will not get Lord Krishna around Arjun to tell him that war is important and killing is also part of "dharma"...."Bhishma", "Guru draun" etc were also following their "dharma" by fighting against the righteous(pandava's)...So once again very subjective talks....

You can't compare Kashmir to Jalianwala at all....!
there is no similarity...The Kashmiri protestors are not hunt down and shot!
They are given all the seven steps to stand down and go back...!
It's not they who get cornered...it is the police...!
Talk to someone serving in Kashmir.
There has been not one Indian equivalent of Dyer...
When soldiers in Kashmir are asked to shoot...they shoot as they see the protesters coming at them...hurling stones...did the same happen in Jalianwala?

Yes they were wrong but fault lies on general dyer than those foot soldiers and that is why Udham Singh went all the way to England to kill dyer and not those foot soldiers, no???...

Udham Singh didn't lay a finger on Dyer...he killed the British Guv Gen of Punjab who lauded Dyer's actions...

 

[subject17]

British rule was India's national humiliation.

there was no Indian state before british.