02-27-2009, 04:48 PM
X-posted.....
<!--QuoteBegin-"brihaspati"+-->QUOTE("brihaspati")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rudradevji's post is great summary. I only have some doubts about the British doing US bidding in the background to the transition to Independence. As far as I know, it was a much more complex dynamic. <b>The British treated Roosevelt's emissary for Indian affairs with great suspcion and did everything to derail his attempts at looking for alternatives to the partition. It was primarily the British who were keen on the partition, and at that stage US had little interest in it. The British could not do much directly to defy the US because of the crucial dependence for resources, so they played the indirect diplomatic evasion and derailing they were so good at. It was the British strategy to see Pak as the key launching pad and remaining strategic presence on the subcontinent and partly to offset their losses to US gains in Asia.</b>
The Leftist connection of Nehru is doubtful as a motivator.<b> Nehru was deliberately promoted by the British with very specific calculations - he would be the weakest of the Congress leaders and the closest psychologically to the British, and therefore the best possible choice to be foisted at the top post. He was the least penalized in terms of freedom to carry out his political activities (he was never exiled, while his potential competitors were usually kept under tight wraps and away from the population). We also see the peculiar pattern in some of our "nationalist" leaders, including Nehru - of suddenly realizing while in jail of the importance of being not against the British but aginst the sole control by the British of state power.</b> The British communist influence angle has to be taken with a pinch of salt as we know that "communists" infiltrated the secret services - which implies that the reverse could also be most likely given British style of functioning. <b>There are reasons for me to say that many of the communist parties of various countries including that of the British had very active moles probably right at the top levels, and could even have been promoted from behind by the secret services.</b> (Take this as my conjecture, as I am reluctant to spell out my arguments and sources).Â
The British were more likely scared of the growth of popular participation in anti-British movements among the non-Muslims compared to the Muslims, and chose to protect this pocket of mass indifference or support as what they were a sounder basis for longer term startegic presence.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-"brihaspati"+-->QUOTE("brihaspati")<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rudradevji's post is great summary. I only have some doubts about the British doing US bidding in the background to the transition to Independence. As far as I know, it was a much more complex dynamic. <b>The British treated Roosevelt's emissary for Indian affairs with great suspcion and did everything to derail his attempts at looking for alternatives to the partition. It was primarily the British who were keen on the partition, and at that stage US had little interest in it. The British could not do much directly to defy the US because of the crucial dependence for resources, so they played the indirect diplomatic evasion and derailing they were so good at. It was the British strategy to see Pak as the key launching pad and remaining strategic presence on the subcontinent and partly to offset their losses to US gains in Asia.</b>
The Leftist connection of Nehru is doubtful as a motivator.<b> Nehru was deliberately promoted by the British with very specific calculations - he would be the weakest of the Congress leaders and the closest psychologically to the British, and therefore the best possible choice to be foisted at the top post. He was the least penalized in terms of freedom to carry out his political activities (he was never exiled, while his potential competitors were usually kept under tight wraps and away from the population). We also see the peculiar pattern in some of our "nationalist" leaders, including Nehru - of suddenly realizing while in jail of the importance of being not against the British but aginst the sole control by the British of state power.</b> The British communist influence angle has to be taken with a pinch of salt as we know that "communists" infiltrated the secret services - which implies that the reverse could also be most likely given British style of functioning. <b>There are reasons for me to say that many of the communist parties of various countries including that of the British had very active moles probably right at the top levels, and could even have been promoted from behind by the secret services.</b> (Take this as my conjecture, as I am reluctant to spell out my arguments and sources).Â
The British were more likely scared of the growth of popular participation in anti-British movements among the non-Muslims compared to the Muslims, and chose to protect this pocket of mass indifference or support as what they were a sounder basis for longer term startegic presence.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->