UK puts support for India in UNSC in policy document

Yes friends, as a part of Neo imperialist policy, UK is trying to say that india cannot become UNSC member without it's support and therefore doing a PR release saying 'oh it is our policy now'...wink wink. I think we should have a new freedom struggle in our hands against King Charles pretty soon. We should give Meghan Markle a cabinet posiition in India to counter these moves.


We are not seeing anykind of relevance to this 5 member gang in near future .Some of the nations like Russians and Chinese are literally challenging others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D68
You named a f*cking island after a Nazi collaborator simply because he was anti-British, so why does it surprise you that some Ukrainians exalt a guy who was anti-Russian, at a time when Stalin actually was worse than Hitler. At least they had experience of occupation by both, whereas your dumbass was just going on blind faith.

The fact some Ukrainians are Nazis is inconsequential, I can guarantee you that even more Russians are. And it's not Ukraine who's invaded a country, executed civilians in mass graves, held huge nationalist rallies, masqueraded a new symbol on arm-bands and locked up protestors.
Netaji was no Nazi. He was no puny man like Churchill.
 

Inglorious Empire: what the British did to India​

Chronicling the evils of British imperialism is imperative given the impact and legacy of that imperialism, and given the dishonest and selective nostalgia about it, not to mention downright ignorance. Almost 60 per cent of Britons were proud of the British Empire and almost 50 per cent thought it had made the colonies better off – a manifestation of what the scholar Paul Gilroy has termed postcolonial melancholia – according to a YouGov poll in 2014.

The company had a private army of 260,000 at the start of the 19th century, and the champions of the British industrial revolution plundered India’s thriving manufacturing industries.

Under British rule India’s share of world manufacturing exports fell from 27 per cent to 2 per cent as East India employees made colossal fortunes. The marquess of Salisbury, secretary of state for India in the 1870s, remarked that “India is to be bled”, and by the end of the 19th century it was Britain’s biggest source of revenue.

To stop is dangerous; to recede ruin” was the logic, as enunciated early by Robert Clive, commander in chief of British India in the mid-18th century. The Indian shipping industry was destroyed and Indian currency manipulated while tariffs and regulations were skewed to favour British industry.

"There were many dissolute rajas, but just 4 per cent of the coveted positions in the Indian civil service were filled by Indians as late as 1930. The nationalist leader Jawaharlal Nehru was cutting in his dismissal of a civil service that was “neither Indian, nor civil, nor a service”.

By 1890 about 6,000 British officials ruled 250 million Indians, but there was also a “cravenness, cupidity, opportunism and lack of organized resistance on the part of the vanquished”.

Racial theories​

India’s native newspapers were also devoured. In 1875 an estimated 475 newspapers existed, most owned and edited by Indians, but severe restrictions were placed on their operations and editors. British racial theories were in full flow in relation to railway matters, with legislation making it impossible for Indian workshops to design and manufacture locomotives.

Racism
was also reflected in the penal code: “there had never been a taboo against homosexuality in Indian culture and practice until the British Victorians introduced one.” Crucially, Britain also “helped solidify and perpetuate the iniquities of the caste system”, which was made out to be more uniform and pervasive than it had been. Religion became a useful means of divide and rule, with the fostering of a two-nation theory that eventually divided the country and made partition inevitable; one million were killed and 17 million displaced.

Lord Oliver, the secretary of state in the 1920s, admitted a predominant bias in British officialdom in favour of the Muslim community to offset Hindu nationalism. The British also sponsored a Shia-Sunni divide in Lucknow and generally transformed religious differences into public, political and legal issues.

There are also reminders of the vile racism of Winston Churchill: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion . . . Let the Viceroy sit on the back of a giant elephant and trample Gandhi into the dirt.”

William Joynson-Hicks, home secretary in the 1928 Conservative government of Stanley Baldwin, that “we conquered India by the sword and by the sword we shall hold it. I am not such a hypocrite to say we hold India for the Indians.”

Up to 35 million died unnecessarily in famines; London ate India’s bread while India starved, and in 1943 nearly four million Bengalis died. It was their own fault, according to the odious Churchill, for “breeding like rabbits”. Collectively, these famines amounted to a “British colonial holocaust”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D68 and RASALGHUL
ON THE EVENING of August 14, 1947, as India prepared to declare its independence, the last British Viceroy in India was sitting alone in his study, when, as he recounted later, he thought to himself: “For still a few more minutes I am the most powerful man on earth.”

Viceroy had ample reason to be glum: his empire was relinquishing its crown jewel, one that had enriched Britain for centuries. Louis Mountbatten was not exaggerating the extent of his power. Nehru had noted in his earlier writings that the power of the British Viceroy was greater than that of any British prime minister or American president. His Majesty’s deputy was India’s colonial master, ruling over 350 million bodies across a continent 20 times larger than Britain, accountable to none of the people he governed. When Nehru, writing from a prison cell in the 1940s, did search for an analogy to the Viceroy’s power, the only name he could think of was that of Adolf Hitler.

In a poem titled “Partition,” W. H. Auden memorialized the image of an unprepared lawyer amputating an entire subcontinent:
In seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided
A continent for better or worse divided
The next day he sailed for England, where he could quickly forget
The case, as a good lawyer must. Return he would not
Afraid, as he told his Club, that he might get shot.

What followed this irresponsible and careless partition was murder, rape, and mob lynching on a scale never before seen in South Asia. The subcontinent had always prided itself on its syncretic traditions; certainly, there were moments of disharmony, but nothing like what would happen in 1947. Muslims killed Hindus and Sikhs, Hindus and Sikhs killed Muslims, neighbor turned on neighbor — and on their neighbors’ children. As far as the eye could see, bodies lay strewn across roads packed with refugees; pregnant women were targeted and cut open; corpses littered the roads of ancient towns and cities. Between one and two million people were killed in the span of this homicidal fury, and over 15 million people were uprooted. It was one of the most harrowing human migrations in all of recorded history. One person, at least, knew where to lay blame for this violence. Louis Mountbatten, the last Viceroy and first Governor-General of independent India, would later bluntly tell a BBC reporter: “I *censored*ed it up.”

Niall Ferguson, the most prominent exponent of imperialism today, has written that there is a “plausible case that Empire enhanced global welfare — in other words, [that it] was a Good Thing.” Ferguson is not alone in this view. Just last year the academic journal Third World Quarterly was forced to pull an article entitled “The Case for Colonialism,” in which Professor Bruce Gilley of Portland State University argued that colonialism was “both objectively beneficial and subjectively legitimate,” the second claim more odious than the first.

In England, Oxford professor Nigel Biggar rushed to Gilley’s defense in a piece published in The Times, chastising Brits who felt guilty about their nation’s colonial history. Backlash against Gilley’s imperialism, expressed primarily through social media protests, amounted to nothing: late last year, Oxford announced that Professor Biggar would be heading a new “Ethics and Empire” project, aiming to study a more balanced — and benign — story of colonial plunder.

The publics for which Gilley and Biggar write, along with the great bulk of the citizenry, do not know the colonial story from the perspective of the colonized.

Western intellectuals have constructed a fantastical balance sheet where the benefits of colonialism outweigh the costs, where some imaginary moral good ultimately exculpates theft and murder. Western publics have hypnotized themselves with historical untruths about their darkest chapters, or else reinterpreted the story as a parable of Western benevolence. That goes for both sides of the Atlantic, and both sides of the English Channel.

Setting the economics of plunder aside, the sheer human consequence of this are such that Angus Deaton found that “the deprivation in childhood of Indians born around mid-century was as severe as any large group in history, all the way back to the Neolithic Revolution.” The deracination and deindustrialization of India was the direct consequence of British policy — duly deliberated, signed, and enacted by the most educated individuals in the world.

Indians were conquered at home but also shipped abroad as indentured servants; some three million Indians were forced to migrate to the West Indies and South Africa to work the plantations. If a parallel to the Indian experience exists, it might be found in the experience of the Africans who were transported in chains, many of them on British ships, to the New World. While indentured servitude was legally distinct from slavery, in the boats and the fields they were functionally the same. Later, the Indian independence movement would influence the American Civil Rights movement and in particular Martin Luther King Jr., who looked to Mohandas Gandhi for inspiration.

There would have been no Industrial Revolution — and no rise of the West — without the colonial gains stolen from India and the bodies snatched from Africa. The freedom of the West was purchased by its looting of the East and South. The conquered knew that this had happened and in their diaries, journals, and memoirs, whether written by slave or subject, they documented the shame it caused them — a primordial shame followed by an equally primordial anger. If a balance sheet of the colonial record is therefore to be constructed, the bodies and wealth stolen from the colonized should be the first accounts to be settled.
 

The crimes of the colonial barbarians – feat British, Portuguese, and the French empire​


Indigenous tribes are communities that are the original residents of a particular land. They are culturally distinct ethnic groups native to a place that has been colonized and settled by another ethnic group. What Colonial Powers did to these tribes has been a dark phase of history. Today, we will explore four instances of Colonial Barbarism that lead to the destruction and extinction of a few tribes.

Niantic people from Connecticut and Rhode Island, the United States
The colonialists wiped out a thousand-year strong tribe. It is also said that the colonial powers used biological warfare to exterminate Niantic people.

1918 Flu Pandemic in India
India’s 1918 flu pandemic was the outbreak of influenza in India between 1918 and later in 1920. The pandemic is thought to have killed over 17 million people. The British ships carrying troops returning from the First World War in Europe brought the Spanish Flu with them and devastated India. Almost an entire generation of Indians was wiped out. All rivers across India were clogged up with bodies because of a shortage of firewood for cremation. Around five tribes in Maharashtra, two in Madhya Pradesh, and approximately 17 elsewhere faced extinction due to the pandemic. The Colonial Barbarians, The British Empire, were at fault as they not only caused the virus to spread in India, but they didn’t do anything to stop it.

Serer people of Senegambia


Serer people of Senegambia in West Africa are perhaps one of the first documented tribes who fought the Portuguese invaders and defeated them with ease. In 1446 CE, a Portuguese caravel bearing the Portuguese slave trader – Nuno Tristão and his team tried to enter the Serer region to carry out slave raiding. None of the adult passengers of that caravel survived. They all succumbed to Serer’s poisoned arrows. However, Serer’s battle was with different power – a religious one. They faced forced conversions from Invaders whose main aim was Islamization was the region. Long story short, the people who resisted conversion were killed, mutilated, and displayed, and the entire ancient Serer Religion is now on the verge of total extinction. Serer people became a target of the 1861 CE jihad led by the Mandinka cleric Ma-Ba Jaxoo. Even the French colonial forces were a part culprit in this war as they knew that a divided Senegal would be easier to rule. France used it to their advantage.

Serer people of Senegambia

Serer people of Senegambia in West Africa are perhaps one of the first documented tribes who fought the Portuguese invaders and defeated them with ease. In 1446 CE, a Portuguese caravel bearing the Portuguese slave trader – Nuno Tristão and his team tried to enter the Serer region to carry out slave raiding. None of the adult passengers of that caravel survived. They all succumbed to Serer’s poisoned arrows. However, Serer’s battle was with different power – a religious one. They faced forced conversions from Invaders whose main aim was Islamization was the region. Long story short, the people who resisted conversion were killed, mutilated, and displayed, and the entire ancient Serer Religion is now on the verge of total extinction. Serer people became a target of the 1861 CE jihad led by the Mandinka cleric Ma-Ba Jaxoo. Even the French colonial forces were a part culprit in this war as they knew that a divided Senegal would be easier to rule. France used it to their advantage.

Conclusion

It may be hard to understand why anyone would want to stick around an empire that systematically oppresses its population. Still, it is more difficult to understand why anyone would want to stick around a nation where most people suffered while the few favored. There should be no defense for these criminal acts by colonial invaders.
 
Ethnicity is nothing to do with nationality.

Must be why his parachute didn't work.
Depends on the context who is Nazi, Nazi collaborator or working similarly to Nazi ideology. For Indians, it has always been Colonial British Empire which were worst, not ignoring the bad deeds of other European colonialists like German, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch etc. There is no two thoughts about it whoever Indian citizens you ask.

For Europeans it's Nazi, for Indians it's British Empire, it's that easy day & night.
Irony is that who reaped the benefits, don't even acknowledge that their country did horrendous crimes against humanity, and in many cases wiped out entire tribes and civilizations.
 
Ethnically an Indian.
There was no Republic of India when his forefathers left for Africa. He is... well... British most importantly, and then perhaps a Hindu and a South Asian.
Must be why his parachute didn't work.
He died in the plane itself, not really jumped out of it. The plane burnt and he died from those injuries.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BMD
The fact some Ukrainians are Nazis is inconsequential, I can guarantee you that even more Russians are. And it's not Ukraine who's invaded a country, executed civilians in mass graves, held huge nationalist rallies, masqueraded a new symbol on arm-bands and locked up protestors.
Personally I don't care. More Europeans kill each other the better. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: D68 and _Anonymous_
Depends on the context who is Nazi, Nazi collaborator or working similarly to Nazi ideology. For Indians, it has always been Colonial British Empire which were worst, not ignoring the bad deeds of other European colonialists like German, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch etc. There is no two thoughts about it whoever Indian citizens you ask.

For Europeans it's Nazi, for Indians it's British Empire, it's that easy day & night.
Irony is that who reaped the benefits, don't even acknowledge that their country did horrendous crimes against humanity, and in many cases wiped out entire tribes and civilizations.
The stats disagree with you though. Famines were rife in the 19th century across Africa, Asia and South America.


(Inside Science) -- What may be the greatest El Niño ever identified may have caused record-breaking droughts that helped trigger disastrous famines, likely killing more than 50 million people globally, a new study finds. Moreover, such an extreme El Niño could repeat in the future, scientists added.
From 1876 to 1878, droughts were followed by famines in Asia, Africa and South America that in total killed up to 3 percent of the world population at the time. No deadlier environmental disaster has occurred since, said climatologist Deepti Singh at Columbia University in New York. The deaths in India from this global famine prompted Florence Nightingale in 1877 to say, "The more one hears about this famine, the more one feels that such a hideous record of human suffering and destruction the world has never seen before."

India is a net exporter of grain today and yet:



  • More than 7000 Indians die per day due to hunger.

How much is that over 77 years, never mind 200? India has longstanding food security and malnutrition problems, and during British rule they were happy to blame it on the Brits, now it either just gets kind of ignored, or is still blamed on the Brits.

You've had a heck of a lot of racial massacres since 1947 too, with more killed in the last 76 years than in massacres from 1751-1947. In fact, you killed more in the first 3.5 months, up to the end of 1947 than died in massacres from 1751-1947. 2 million in 3.5 months is basically a Jallianwala Bagh per hour.


As for accusations on flu pandemics, that impacted globally and in the early 19th century, doctors wouldn't have been able to do jack sh1t.
 
Last edited:
I would also question whether it's fair to judge actors from over a century ago based on modern standards. What if say GOI brought out a new law today and charged someone for breaking it 5 years ago? Even that would be considered unfair right? Yet we judge the century-old actions of historical empires against the standards of the 2020s.
 
When Nehru, writing from a prison cell in the 1940s, did search for an analogy to the Viceroy’s power, the only name he could think of was that of Adolf Hitler.
Adolf Hitler would have gassed every single one of you, let's be quite clear about that.
 
Adolf Hitler would have gassed every single one of you, let's be quite clear about that.

The Irish Times
Books

Ireland and the Nazis: a troubled history​

As a neutral leader, de Valera trod a fine line between Nazi Germany and Britain, not helped by a pro-Nazi envoy in Berlin and his controversial condolences on Hitler’s death​

Expand
XJM2X7WTP3GFICQUTDZISJRQN4.jpg

Taoiseach Eamon de Valera’s condolences on Hitler’s death spawned immediate international condemnation

Mervyn O'Driscoll
Tue May 9 2017 - 10:55
A phantom hangs over Ireland’s relations with Hitler’s Germany. Since Eamon de Valera’s visit to the Third Reich’s minister to Ireland on 2 May 1945, the spectre of pro-Nazism has dogged Ireland’s reputation. De Valera’s condolences on the suicide of the German head of state, Adolf Hitler, spawned immediate international condemnation. He gifted his critics all the ammunition that they desired to stigmatise Ireland.
ZLVWOZXTWG4G453P5SSTYL5KVU.jpg

Irish enovoy to Berlin Charles Bewley: anti-Semitic and Anglophobic. Photograph: Getty Images
The notorious character and conduct of Charles Bewley, the Irish minister to Germany in the 1930s, would appear to substantiate this unkind depiction. Arriving in Berlin in July 1933 after Hitler’s seizure of power, he betrayed a lack of professionalism time after time. Disturbing signs of his anti-Semitism, dogmatic Anglophobia and insolence are clear throughout his career from the early 1920s. After 1933 he engaged in an unashamed charm offensive to curry favour with the Nazi regime. During his accreditation ceremony with President von Hindenburg, Bewley referred to the “national rebirth of Germany” in an unconcealed endorsement of Nazism. During his tenure, he recurrently endorsed Nazism as a safeguard against the expansion of Soviet Communism. He downplayed or apologised for the reprehensible Nazi regime’s negative features such as the persecution of Jews, the suppression of Christianity and its aggressive expansionism.
However, Bewley was not alone. Joseph P Walshe, the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, was momentarily deceived by the intoxicating atmosphere of national reinvigoration that he found when he visited Cologne in 1933. He enthused about Germany’s “great experiment”. Sections of the British and American conservative elites were also misled into believing that Hitler was an indispensable tonic for the chaos that Germany experienced during the Weimar Republic before 1933. Was Hitler the leader to renew Germany? Perhaps he could be tamed to serve useful purposes? Many respectable commentators thought Adolf Hitler was a necessary defence against the “red threat” of Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union. Mussolini had reversed Italy’s dreadful fortunes after the Great War and crushed its communist virus. Why should Hitler not be afforded the same space to remedy Germany’s misfortunes? A prevalent view was that the Treaty of Versailles had unjustly humiliated Germany, stripping it of territory and forcing it to pay shameful reparations on the spurious grounds that it had caused the Great War.
5MNKDYL3EVQWF5LSARPGIU4KLQ.jpg

Joseph P Walshe, Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, was deceived by the intoxicating atmosphere of national reinvigoration that he found when he visited Cologne in 1933
Walshe, de Valera and others in Dublin were quickly disabused of any mistaken admiration they might have held for Nazism. De Valera’s depiction as a half-caste Jew in a German newspaper in July 1933, coupled with the deprecation of Irish republicanism as part of a Jewish world conspiracy in other Nazi publications, resulted in an Irish protest to the German Foreign Office. Many unsettling incidents brought the pitiless and grotesque nature of Nazi rule to the attention of the Irish authorities, Bewley’s effort to deconstruct and dull any adverse representations of Nazi Germany notwithstanding. Bewley surprisingly downplayed evidence of Nazism’s hostility towards Catholicism but the Irish government, press and public were not misled by Nazi propaganda in this and several other respects.

READ MORE

IFYVMYXVB3MC2VHXXS5BVCXFJY.jpg

Regardless, in Irish republican circles there was an enduring belief that Germany was predisposed to sympathy with Ireland’s struggle. Had both states not suffered from imposed post-conflict settlements (the Versailles Treaty of 1919 and the Anglo-Irish Treaty, 1921)? Such an outlook contended they had a common interest in righting the wrongs of the interwar order. Since the late 19th century, Irish revolutionaries had seen Germany as a prospective ally to assist their drive for independence. Such reasoning stirred Roger Casement’s doomed efforts to solicit German aid for the 1916 Rising, and this pattern continued after Irish independence. Germany was viewed as a military and economic counterpole to British influence, and the high quality products of its modern firms were sought for Irish industrialisation.
In practice, after 1933 de Valera’s Ireland operated a dual-track policy. While a policy of non-interference in, or no comment on, German domestic affairs operated, equally de Valera sympathised with Germans’ nationalist grievances against the Versailles Treaty. Ireland accepted successive faits accomplis by Hitler, such as the German withdrawal from the League of Nations (1933), rearmament, the remilitarisation of the Rhineland (1936), and the absorption of Austria (1938). Thinking in realpolitik terms, de Valera floated an arrangement with Germany in 1934 to divide Irish foreign trade evenly between Germany, Britain and the US. He supported British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s efforts to appease Adolf Hitler, most memorably during the Munich Crisis of September 1938.

Looked at from another perspective, perhaps de Valera and other members of the political elite were tempted to believe that the appeasement of Nazi Germany worked to Ireland’s advantage? The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1938, which ended the Anglo-Irish economic war and returned the treaty ports (Queenstown/Cobh, Lough Swilly and Castletown Berehaven) to Ireland, was heavily inspired by Chamberlain to secure Britain’s western flank. If the appeasement of Hitler failed and an Anglo-German war broke out, Britain needed a friendly western neighbour. In a way, therefore, Nazi Germany served de Valera’s interests admirably. Not only that, if Hitler’s case for the inclusion of all ethnic Germans within a “Greater Germany” was tolerated, did this not strengthen de Valera’s case to end Irish partition?
However, in the final analysis, de Valera drew the line in 1939. The Irish Government did not recognise the German annexation of the rump Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Hitler’s employment of force, coupled with the absence of a German national claim on these regions, crossed the Rubicon. Until late 1938, the retention of Bewley may have served de Valera’s purposes, but the baring of Hitler’s true intent and Bewley’s unabashed apologia for the Hitlerite excesses transformed him into a liability. Worse, in an irrevocable bout of insubordination, Bewley criticised de Valera’s foreign policy as pro-British, anti-Irish and anti-German. He had to go. De Valera hastily prepared the ground for neutrality as the war clouds gathered over Europe.
KHZ64LQ5YT7YZ67EPJGU6RPFE4.jpg

Irish exchange students and Hitler Youth in Berlin, 1936. Photograph: Getty Images
Brexit is simply the latest episode in the enduring test that Irish national leaders perennially face as they seek to balance Britain and Germany. For a small and marginal state struggling to sustain its identity and autonomy, and avoid being crushed between these two poles of European power politics or dominated by either, this has been a taxing proposition ever since 1922. Common British, German and Irish membership of the European Union was the ideal strategic and commercial solution, but Brexit threatens to resurrect independent Ireland's Anglo-German conundrum.
Ireland, Germany and the Nazis: Politics and Diplomacy, 1919-1939 by Mervyn O'Driscoll is published by Four Courts Press. Mervyn O'Driscoll is senior lecturer in history at University College Cork. He is a member of the advisory committee for the Dictionary of Irish biography and serves as chair of the Royal Irish Academy's standing committee for international affairs


 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
@BMD

Just leave it fellow! Your propaganda is boring now. The crimes that your British Empire committed against us Indians can't ever be forgotten or forgiven, period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _Anonymous_
I would also question whether it's fair to judge actors from over a century ago based on modern standards. What if say GOI brought out a new law today and charged someone for breaking it 5 years ago? Even that would be considered unfair right? Yet we judge the century-old actions of historical empires against the standards of the 2020s.
If British people go by that yardstick, why even blame Nazi people from over a century ago? Why the double standards?
 
Last edited:
Adolf Hitler would have gassed every single one of you, let's be quite clear about that.
British Empire did the same with us too! My neighbouring people were eliminated en masse when Kakory incident happened in another part of our state. Hell even our centuries old tribes were erased from this very Earth. I know our history isn't even mentioned in British books.

Post 30 highlighted points are just my personal opinion what should we expect from UK, elites & civilians included all alike.