Insanity in Indian History Books about British involvement in Partition

Has to be read in conjunction with this blog
http://danasurdanu.blogspot.com/2014/07/1945-1946-elections-who-voted-for.html

Indian political system has been Childish and Devilish at once.

British early were racist and imperialist, as seen in the words of their philosophers like Maxmuller (Germany by birth)

 

But Indian leftist historians didn't criticize them for that part. People like Irfan Habib, Romila Thapar gave boost to Aryan invasion theory. Aim of Aryan invasion theory was to break the Hindus. 

On the other hand we have put a lot of false things about British in History, who were by no means any friend of ours at all on large, except individuals like Anie Beseant. This has been done to save the real culprits (Islamofacists) who are more important for Leftists than British. 

Indian History books highly exaggerate and entire blame of partition has been put on British (specifically intent of partition). As if British spent their entire time conspiring to partition India and their life depended on it.

History books in Pakistan portray India and Hindus as enemy till eternity and make no unpleasant reference to British. 
Since we don't have courage to talk about these Pakistani crooks and their allies in Indian think tanks and universities, we satisfy our ego and self worth by blaming British.
Except the conquests of Shivaji and Ranjit Singh, we don't have any significant victory to our name in last 1000 years. And we don't want to feel proud of Shivaji, lest our Muslim brother in laws would get upset. So we sometimes imagine fake victories and victim-hood against British out of air when we talk about partition and freedom struggle. Just as Pakistanis see every event as conspiracy by USA, Hindus and Jews. We sleep with our enemies in bedroom and blame a passer by.  British did not want to build a secretariat at birthplace of Rama in Ayodhya. They didn't want to make every Indian woman sleep with white man to change them to British. They didn't want to kill everyone who doesn't change himself into British and burns all the Sanskrit and choti. All these things happened in Kashmir, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

British ruled 24% of the land of the world before WWII and they had at stake trade, war debts, communist Soviet Union, rebuilding economy.
British slowly, and orderly vacated almost 3 dozen countries within 2-3 years.
British were not going to stay in Indian villages and towns, they didn't build their houses and church.
Their stake in India when they were leaving was limited, as it was in other parts of their empire.
And we forget that they defeated Hitler, Japan and similar important powers.

Common Indian is illiterate and has little knowledge about world than what he gets from WhatsApp and Facebook posts drafted by equally illiterate brothers.
There used to be a beggar in front of my school, he abused everybody because nobody paid him attention. I guess he took it seriously.

It is nuisance and preposterous to think that British would take Indians so seriously when they were leaving India. It is insanity and an exercise to boost our own assessment of our self worth. If check out History lessons in British schools, there is only very tiny place in it about India, they were not obsessed with Indians when they were leaving, as we would like to imagine, and we imagine just because we don't have anything else to talk or to show.

I don't know about any Indian contribution in modern technology in any field like physics, nuclear science, mathematics, engineering or anything of worth we contributed to modern sciences during last 500 years. British are gone for 70 years. I just recall that Hughes dock in Mumbai was Built by British more than 300 years ago, and in 21st century our new New dock for aircraft carrier in Mumbai is also engineered by a Dutch company. Most of the Engineering for Indian Navy Seabird project in Karwar is being done by Dutch companies. Most of important parts of our so called in-house fighter planes, we import from abroad. Same is true for every equipment or worth in our Naval ships. British left Hongkong in much better shape after 50 years in 1997, while Mumbai remains a ghetto agglomeration.  In British time cargo ships could come all the way to Kolkata, which was a big port city. Even though they didn't respect Indians, and like everyone else in the world they were selfish. But they did lot more for Indians by setting up institutions which enable us to function as democracy today and which we corrupted to the core. We produced leaders who were worse than British as far as sum total of Indian interests concerned, and read between the lines British knew us better than we knew, they foresaw the anarchy.

Unlike us who form our opinion just on emotion out of cloud, they studied everything methodically, including our psychology and our culture, they corrupted it when they needed. We are not capable of doing that with any other nation, even if it was wrong, they could do it.  Even today USA and UK have schools and departments which study different countries of the world, people and their psychology, that forms one of the major inputs for their foreign policy decisions. We Indians undermine everything we can, including study of our own history as if we were wannabe Arab or Mughals, I guess our diplomats (not trusting Kanhaiya Kumar types in our universities) take services of or follow material produced by experts in American universities. British deciphered Prakrit and Moryan edicts, unearthed Harappa, Mohanjodaro, Stupas, ruins of Nalanda and Vikramshila. British launched the great Survey of India in 1802, 50 years before laying railway lines, they created the maps, created record of soil, flora and fauna, found out height of Mt Everest. Almost all of the ground work for setting up democratic system in India was done by British from scratch. Constituent assembly was formed under British Guidance in 1946, before that Imperial Legislative Council and other structures existed at provincial and national level (reference: Government of India Act 1919 and 1935).  A major part of our constitution was copy cat of British and other constitutions. While we are still busy deciding whether it was Dr Ambedkar (he had studied constitution of many countries, but..) or Brahmin leaders and secretaries in the Drafting Committee who founded it from nowhere, like IIT professors who write engineering books by copying contents from different fundamental books published abroad, but are considered new Isaac Newton. Many of our acts predate to British India. It is madness to think that British were very upset and jealous after leaving India.

I am not denying intent of Macauley. All I am telling is our ancestors were willing accomplishes of Macauley and now that British are gone and we are accomplishes of those who think Arabs and Mughals gave us civilization and we are Mughals, our culture is eating protein rich Kebab, Beef biryani and marrying our sisters to Mughal blood men to express our gratitude.


Just to remind Indians, that almost all of the royalties in India, like Scindhias or Sikh maharajas after Ranjit singh were proud servants of British. Princes of Rajasthan lined up to do the services in insignificant positions in British army.  Never heard which Rajput prince turned the battle against Nazis in Normandy or against Japanese in Singapore, or helped British intelligence services with some breakthrough or were part of planning team of Churchill. Many of our glorified Rajput princes were probably unprofessional to be even officer in British Army, I guess they needed food cooked by a high caste Hindu. For many others understanding of English and studies in London was their sole achievement. Before British came most of the Rajput Royalty licked Mughals. 

These wars were fought on the base of technology, better fighter planes, war ships, tanks, communication and surveillance equipment, all about which we were completely ignorant. We Indians didn't know how to build a sewing needle on our own. We were proud just by providing manpower which could pull trigger of British machine guns (it would have impressed our untouchables castes back in village, who never saw a machine gun), and we even like to feel that they won battles because we fought. British just wanted recruits, they saw a Rajput prince (motivation for others to recruit) as they saw a Gorkha from remote village from Nepal or many other subjects of British empire across the globe they might have hired. Perhaps they always liked Gurkha much more because they might have much less attitude and were better in the field.

During second world war most of Indians fought on eastern front, with Japan. 40 thousand Indian soldiers surrendered in Singapore alone. We dont have any account of Japanese surrendering to British Indian army. Because Japanese soldier in 95% cases die in battle rather than surrendering. So Japanese considered Indians as characterless mercenaries. Who fought for British empire, and cowards who surrendered. Indian soldier prisoners were treated with disrespect by Japanese soldiers. Those included Hindu, Muslim, Sikh all. I don't know what percentage of them were Rajput Royalties, most foolish and bragging lot of them. 

Similarly, Germans found a way of dealing with captured British Indian soldiers, they offered them with a choice of fighting for them (for them it made sense, If we can fight for British, we can fight for German). So a big part of captured Indian soldiers fought for Germans. 

I had a batchmate from Jaipur, he claimed his great grandmother was grand child of Sawai Madho Singh. He claimed his great grandfather would twist British Indian coin with fingers, and they swung swords of 20 kg plus, spear of 60 kg. I consider all that to be fiction. Like the story of Prithvi Raj Chauhan killing Ghori even after being blinded. These are silly stories. Represents mental state of the narrator. 

Few Indians like Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose fought for independence. Most educated Indians who can think, saw British to be God whom we can never match. Our educated Bengali middle class were mostly were wannabe British. Now since we cant do even honest soul searching, we fill up books as if we were all born in families freedom fighters (a lot of freedom fighter pensioners were petty people who disobeyed the existing law in British India and served jails etc., but their acts had no connection with freedom struggle).

I read in a book about India China war:

The setting mocked the headlines. India did not qualify for modern warfare. ‘She, whose only peer was the Holy Roman Empire, she shall rank with Guatemala and Belgium perhaps!’

The news grew worse. There were rumours of Gurkhas sent up to Ladakh armed only with their

knives, and of men flown from the Assam plains to the mountains of NEFA clad only in singlets and tennis-shoes.

But from the politicians there came only speeches, and from the administrator correct regulations. The

famous Fourth Division was cut to pieces; the humiliation of the Indian Army, India’s especial pride, was complete.

If this was the condition after 15 years of independence, then indeed all those 15 years, and years before, were just sleeping and making big mouthing, without action on the ground. Petty countries like Israel with 6 lakh population fought better war with Arab neighbors in 1948. 

Attachment VS Naipaul: India Woulnded Civilization

I was reading somewhere that India alone had more than 4000 Rolls Royce. 

With some of the princes owning 30-40 cars. 

Those princes they studied in London. Had their own cook, chauffeur. 

What do we know about their achievements in science, philosophy, arts? 

High people rode Rolls Royce, big landlords who couldn't afford that, their status was measured by the number of elephants and horses in the stable. 

Each elephant ate produce of 12 bighas of land, mostly sugarcane. On that land poor 100 people can survive.  

They did what was expected from them, what society rewarded. 

Our society did not know science and reason, and had no value for it. 

Still it is same for most people. 

People didn't expect them to do anything like improving governance, building canals etc.

World had changed, syllabus had changed, but people kept expecting same from their rulers: "bhikh".

Even in personal values the syllabus has changed, even if sprit may remain same in many aspects. 

Now Rama and Sita doesn't have to go through the same things,  he/she has to answer a different question paper.

People in one circle might have been lobbying to become the favorite of the ruler. 

These favorites might have been the cause of jealousy among other courtesans, who would have formed different power circles. 

Big landlords would have sought favor of these courtesans, and 

a tiller and worker at the bottom would take landlord as his Mai Baap. 

Where is the place for responsibility or delivery in this cycle? Those were voluntary. 

It can't breed anything other than sycophancy.