February 23, 2005

A Briton Once Asked: Can India be regained again?

Can India be regained again?

Was Churchill going right? Why Simon commission shown a black flag?

There are three statements. The first one is in the Message tittle and rest of the two constitutes the Message. The Title suggests that the proposer believes and some where at the back of his mind, he desires that it would have been beneficial for Britain to retain India as her colony at all cost. He has showed the desire that India should be regained.
This section deals with the tool of "if" and ‘then’ and ‘but’ which is used by historians to discern the truth about the past. However, they never narrate the working of this tool in their final writing. They write only that which they have been able to ascertain. During the process they tackle and take up such assertions and questions which may hurt the sensibility, egos, honours of many people and nations. However, here it is attempted openly and this is an attempt to use this tool.

In order to regain India, first Britain has to abrogate the Indian Independence Act of July 1947 which was passed in the British Parliament. With that, the partition of India and Pakistan would end. Then Britain should take up the cases of the Princely states with the international court and help their inheritors to regain their wealth and title. Kashmir should be handed over to Karan Singh, the son of the last King of Kashmir. Similarly Junagarh and Hyderabad should be returned to their respective heirs. The Lahore Kingdom should handed over to the heirs of Sukherchakia Misl and Kanheyia Misl. Nepal should be allowed to occupy the territory upto Kangra which was once won by Amar Singh Thapa from whom Maharaja Ranjit Singh had snatched. Then the Macmohan line and Durrant line should be abolished and Britain should take up the cause of Tibetians in their own hand. On the eastern side of India, Britain should regain Burma which is now called Mayanmar. It should be ready to end the interference of China in Auranchal Pardesh and Nagaland. On the extreme south, House of Mysore should be restored to Wadiar family and the case of Tamils should taken over by the British Parliament. In this manner, India can be regained.
The next two statements stands apart in time. Churchill was Prime Minister at the time of WW II. Brikenhead was Prime Minister when Simon Commission visited India. Now if Churchill had not decided to join the war or had gone for further appeasement then India could have been saved. Then the Congress government would have not resigned. Then Roosevelt would have not forced Churchill to seek the cooperation of Indians for the war efforts which they had earlier extended during the WW I. Then Churchill would have the satisfaction that he had not taken over the post to preside over the disintegration of the India British Empire. However, that had taken place during the period of Attlee, the Prime Minister of Labour Government. Then, Britain would have not sent the Cripps Mission. Then the Japan would have not attacked India and Indians would have not started Quit India Movement. Then the Communists would have not cooperated with British government in India. Then the British Parliament would have not sent in the Cabinet Mission. Instead, Churchill should have worked to counter the invasion of the Japanese machinery products in India. He should have tried to increase export to India and made the possession of India a viable and useful possession. Then India would have not been lost to Britain.
Simon Commission visited India in February 1928. It was all white men commission which came to review the working of the Political reforms which had started by Indian Council Act 1919. The members of the commission were Lord Linithgow, Cripps and one other English gentleman. It was one of the provision of the Indian Council Act of 1919 that Parliament would review the working of the Act after ten years. But Simon Commission was sent to do the same job before the required period had elapsed. The British Parliament was forced to take this action because of the political maturity acquired by the Indian masses by then. Before that, Indians had cooperated with Britain in their war efforts of WW I because Britain had declared that she was fighting for making world safe for democracy. But the British government belied their expectations and hope. They came up with Rowlatt Act which denied civil liberties to the Indians before passing the Act of 1919. The Indians responded by Non Cooperation Movement. The British retaliated in form of Jalianwala Bagh Massacre. The Indians maintained their composure and did not leave the path of non-violence. The British government gave another setback to the Indians and disappointed the Muslim population of India during the treaty with Turkey and Khalifa. The Indian more mature political activity when they decided to start the Civil Disobedience Movement on the principle of non-violence and Satyagragha. But that did not materialize. The Indians were politically quite mature and their next answer came in form of Swarajist Party. Swarajist Party showed it on the floor of Legislature that the British government was not sincere in its desire to extent political rights to the Indians. But there was left no other option before the British government because the Swarajist party had fully exposed them. During this period, the Indian masses, especially the Bombay Mill workers had on their own forced the Bombay Presidency government to pass the Wages bill which is considered the biggest achievement of the Mill workers in the whole world because they were not lead by any leader of any ideology. It was the victory of a class consciousness. No doubt this period also saw the rise of revolutionary form of movement and communalism in India. But on the whole, Indian had fully demonstrated to Britain and the world that they as a nation were one and also a peaceful people who believed in rightful and peaceful political activities. They had responded in form of Nehru report to an insulting remark of PM Brikenhead. For Indians, in spite of all arguments, judicious presentations, memorandum and legal means, the British government was not ready to take Indians on the commission to review the working of the political rights in India. The British government had sent all white mission. Therefore, as another instance of political activity they greeted the Commission with black flags. It was their peaceful way of showing their resentment. No doubt, it was soon followed by Puran Swaraj resolution and Britain lost India.

Special Note:
This is an article which was once
published on BBC.com history section. Why did they remove it, I do not know.
Irene, the H-Host first acknowledged them and found them great but after they
had removed the article I was not able to log in again and they neither
responded to my mails.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Contact Form


Email *

Message *