Muslim and Hindu leaders who were loyalists of British Empire

[INDIC]

My point was the intention of the British. They were ready to loosen the rope. After First World War, the size of the empire swelled but the confidence of it's protectors started diminishing. So, Size actually did not matter. There are reasons why the British gave up their possessions right after 1945 but the other colonial powers like French and the Dutch didn't. We can discuss it some other time.

Just after world War 1, British imposed the Rowlett Act in India and committed the notorious Jillianwalabagh massacre in 1919. This all shows British were in no mood to leave India, it was the world war 2 that made Britain bankrupt and weak was one of the main reasons that British left India.

 

[scorpionx]

Just after world War 1, British imposed the Rowlett Act in India and committed the notorious Jillianwalabagh massacre in 1919. This all shows British were in no mood to leave India, it was the world war 2 that made Britain bankrupt and weak was one of the main reasons that British left India.

Indic, I did not claim that British intended to leave India right after First World War. What I said is there was a growing sentiment among British political aristocrats in London that a sort of self rule is inevitable and it became increasingly evident that without weakening the strength of mass movements India is literally "ungovernable". That is why Allan Octavian Hume had to think of an organisation which would give the Indian native dissension a recognition in the name of National Congress way back in 1885. What also important to note that Indian Home Rule movement started in the middle of First World War under the leadership of a British, Anne Besant who was also a leading speaker in Social Democratic Federation. Socialist movements, interestingly played a vital role in building the foundation of Nationalist movements in Armenia, Poland or Israel for example and India was no exception.


Going back to our discussion, the Rowlatt act along with vernacular Press act had to be withdrawn within three years of its introduction for the massive uproar against the repressive spirit of these acts. The British Imperial power was ready to negotiate with the nationalist leaders in a democratic manner which gave confidence to Gandhi who said India will achieve Swaraj within 1922.And guess what, we formed interim government within a decade.

 

[Imran Khan]

accept it or not British rule was 19307303850485 times better then our current govs

 

[FaujHistorian]

Indic, I did not claim that British intended to leave India right after First World War. What I said is there was a growing sentiment among British political aristocrats in London that a sort of self rule is inevitable and it became increasingly evident that without weakening the strength of mass movements India is literally "ungovernable". That is why Allan Octavian Hume had to think of an organisation which would give the Indian native dissension a recognition in the name of National Congress way back in 1885. What also important to note that Indian Home Rule movement started in the middle of First World War under the leadership of a British, Anne Besant who was also a leading speaker in Social Democratic Federation. Socialist movements, interestingly played a vital role in building the foundation of Nationalist movements in Armenia, Poland or Israel for example and India was no exception.


Going back to our discussion, the Rowlatt act along with vernacular Press act had to be withdrawn within three years of its introduction for the massive uproar against the repressive spirit of these acts. The British Imperial power was ready to negotiate with the nationalist leaders in a democratic manner which gave confidence to Gandhi who said India will achieve Swaraj within 1922.And guess what, we formed interim government within a decade.

Brilliant post Scorp Ji.

this is the type of independent analysis we all need to do.

As our sarkari school history books are full of lies. Unfortunately so many grown ups in our countries refuse to grow up and study beyond 5th grade history.


Thank you.

 

[LURKER]

brain child?



They were done with British India long long long time ago.

Why on earth they would call not one, not two but three round table conferences.

Do you know why it is called a round table conference?

There was no way Gandhi or for that matter any leader could have got any big concessions from the British at the round table conferences given the British were at the peak of their power. The British had already suppressed Civil Disobedience movement ruthelessly after the 1st RTC so it is incorrect to blame Gandhi for not getting anything substantial from it in the subsequent conferences.

 

[FaujHistorian]

There was no way Gandhi or for that matter any leader could have got any big concessions from the British at the round table conferences given the British were at the peak of their power. The British had already suppressed Civil Disobedience movement ruthelessly after the 1st RTC so it is incorrect to blame Gandhi for not getting anything substantial from it in the subsequent conferences.

Please list the "big concessions" by Gandhi and other leaders that were tabled in round table conference,
and only British used their political power to shoot them down.

Thank you

 

[INDIC]

@FaujHistorian so nobody criticized Muslim League yet, the ire is on the Indian National Congress and those Muslims who didn't support the Pakistan movement.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian so nobody criticized Muslim League yet, the ire is on the Indian National Congress and those Muslims who didn't support the Pakistan movement.

???????


Not sure if this thread was supposed to be a comprehensive lesson on history.

I am sure you read the OP.

Correct?

 

[INDIC]

???????


Not sure if this thread was supposed to be a comprehensive lesson on history.

I am sure you read the OP.

Correct?

Why don't you see it yourself, my comment has a point.

 

[LURKER]

Please list the "big concessions" by Gandhi and other leaders that were tabled in round table conference,
and only British used their political power to shoot them down.

Thank you

A responsible government must be established immediately and in full, both at the centre and in the provinces.
The Untouchables were Hindus and should not be treated as a "minority".
There should be no separate electorates or special safeguards for Muslims or other minorities.

But last two were stonewalled by other delegates .

What ideas do you have in mind that he could have raised at that point of time given the circumstances which could have made any major breakthrough??

 

[FaujHistorian]

A responsible government must be established immediately and in full, both at the centre and in the provinces.
The Untouchables were Hindus and should not be treated as a "minority".
There should be no separate electorates or special safeguards for Muslims or other minorities.

But last two were stonewalled by other delegates .

What ideas do you have in mind that he could have raised at that point of time given the circumstances which could have made any major breakthrough??

you said something different in post #200

 

[LURKER]

you said something different in post #200

He acted according to the circumstances prevailing at that moment and now I'm asking you to enlighten me as to how he could have "acted smart" as propounded by you so that the British had to leave India in the 30s itself.

 

[scorpionx]

He acted according to the circumstances prevailing at that moment and now I'm asking you to enlighten me as to how he could have "acted smart" as propounded by you so that the British had to leave India in the 30s itself.

This particular belief that Indians could gain a dominion status in the 30's itself rests upon two explanations. The first one is eloquently described by one of Gandhi's most trusted compadre, Maulana Azad himself. When Prince of Wales visited India in 1921 and the Congress decided to boycott his tour, every senior politicians were put to jail. This was then, Lord Reading agreed to hold a round table conference with Congress to reach a settlement provided Congress withdraws it's program to boycott Prince's visit.

Each and every senior political leader including C R Das considered this proposal a great opportunity.But Gandhi rejected this offer and demanded unconditional release of every leader, especially Ali brothers. Soon after, the round table proposal was dropped by the Viceroy.To every one's surprise, Gandhiji himself made a similar proposal for round table conference few months later on similar terms. But unfortunately, Prince left India already and the British ha no further interest in this proposal. C R Das termed this incident as Gandhi's great political blunder.

Second explanation and perhaps more plausible and widely accepted one was Gandhi's untimely retraction from non-cooperation movement.It was this time when Michael Collins, though controversially accepted a dominion status of the Irish Free State under the British and provided a rather ideological model for India to have a similar sort of mechanism for itself. The British retreated in Ireland. They neglected Collins' terrorist activities and negotiated with him. Same was the condition in India. If Gandhi held his nerve a little longer, the British would have bowed down to this monumental pressure. The Governor of Bombay, Sir George Lloyd then said," Gandhi's was the most colossal experiment in world history, and it came within an inch of succeeding."

The reason behind the failure of second round table conference is a separate chapter in Indian History and unfortunately it was another saga of a series of errors from Gandhi which we can discuss later. An wise man a great politician of this subcontinent,though in a different context later said,"..but in politics one has to play one's game as on a chessboard." Sadly, Gandhiji did not believe in this rule. His rules of politics were different, inappropriate to be more accurate. If he had waited for the right moment to show his cards, India could achieve dominion status if not complete Independence before 30's quite smoothly.

 

[LURKER]

This particular belief that Indians could gain a dominion status in the 30's itself rests upon two explanations. The first one is eloquently described by one of Gandhi's most trusted compadre, Maulana Azad himself. When Prince of Wales visited India in 1921 and the Congress decided to boycott his tour, every senior politicians were put to jail. This was then, Lord Reading agreed to hold a round table conference with Congress to reach a settlement provided Congress withdraws it's program to boycott Prince's visit.

Each and every senior political leader including C R Das considered this proposal a great opportunity.But Gandhi rejected this offer and demanded unconditional release of every leader, especially Ali brothers. Soon after, the round table proposal was dropped by the Viceroy.To every one's surprise, Gandhiji himself made a similar proposal for round table conference few months later on similar terms. But unfortunately, Prince left India already and the British ha no further interest in this proposal. C R Das termed this incident as Gandhi's great political blunder.

Second explanation and perhaps more plausible and widely accepted one was Gandhi's untimely retraction from non-cooperation movement.It was this time when Michael Collins, though controversially accepted a dominion status of the Irish Free State under the British and provided a rather ideological model for India to have a similar sort of mechanism for itself. The British retreated in Ireland. They neglected Collins' terrorist activities and negotiated with him. Same was the condition in India. If Gandhi held his nerve a little longer, the British would have bowed down to this monumental pressure. The Governor of Bombay, Sir George Lloyd then said," Gandhi's was the most colossal experiment in world history, and it came within an inch of succeeding."

The reason behind the failure of second round table conference is a separate chapter in Indian History and unfortunately it was another saga of a series of errors from Gandhi which we can discuss later. An wise man a great politician of this subcontinent,though in a different context later said,"..but in politics one has to play one's game as on a chessboard." Sadly, Gandhiji did not believe in this rule. His rules of politics were different, inappropriate to be more accurate. If he had waited for the right moment to show his cards, India could achieve dominion status if not complete Independence before 30's quite smoothly.

Thanks for a detalied explanation of events that unfolded at that point of time, my knowledge in history is clearly secondary to yours.

But can the Irish and Indian situation at that point of time be comparable? Indian society was much fragemented with several sections whose interests lay with the continuation of British rule and others like Muslim league who were pro-British most of the times and were rather at loggerheads with the Congress . There were many faultlines in India's case which British could use to scuttle any concerted efforts by the Nationalists to hard bargain anything substantial from the British.

 

[FaujHistorian]

..... There were many faultlines in India's case which British could use to scuttle any concerted efforts by the Nationalists to hard bargain anything substantial from the British.

British were no saints.

But to accuse them for exploiting "fault lines" is really over the top negative.

Lala lajpat Rai was no stooge of British, then why he is the one exploiting fault lines as documented in his letters to CR Das.

Sadly the same Lala spent 4-5 years in USA (came for shorter visit but got stuck due to WW-1)

and still failed to understand USA's 1776 "Declaration of Independence"

So please quit quoting 5th grade Sarkari school history books.

It is lot more complicated than simple childish philosophy "Gandhi Good, british Bad, Jinnah worst".

Hope you understand.