From what I understood from this article, it tries to convey the idea that India was under British rule till 1950. I disagree. I want to highlight a couple of things about independence. The Brits left India and India was free to pursue her own path after August 15, 1947. Neither was she under any obligation to agree to the British foreign policy nor was she was under English command. We were the masters of our destiny. Yes, it was a part of commonwealth of nations which we still are. Commonwealth does not mean control. It's a group. Like NATO, SAARC, its a group of nations formerly under Colonial Britain. Let me define the difference between independent, sovereign and republic nations. An independent country pursues its own course without any obligations, forced or otherwise. A sovereign country is one which has a defined boundary, a permanent population and a central authority that will govern it. A republic is an sovereign, independent nation governed by the rules it frames for itself. So the pre-requisite to become a republic is having a set of rules by which it governs itself. After being sovereign independent country, India elected a constituent assembly to create a formal constitution. The constituent assembly took time and produced one of the most comprehensive written constitutions that the world has ever seen. Then, independent sovereign India gave onto itself this constitution and declared itself a republic. If you read the preamble to the constitution, it clearly uses these words.
The next question is why Mountbatten and some of the English officers remained in India after the English left. Lord Mountbatten was requested by Nehru and the Congress to see us through the transition. If you read through any of the independent versions of our freedom struggle, you can verify this fact. And just to clear the air, as soon as Pakistan got independence, they armed Pathans from Afghanistan to plunder Kashmir and Mountbatten with his military background from second world war, helped India air lift troops and annex Kashmir. Again, you can verify this. Another interesting anecdote is, when Lord Mountbatten went to attend Pakistan's independence day, he asked who will be anointed as the president of Pakistan. Jinnah replied "If someone else were to become the President, why would I fight so much for a separate Pakistan?". Lord Mountbatten was a British citizen for sure, but at no point of time was India obligated to obey the crown. As soon as we became a Republic, the governor general left and we had our own President, Prime minister and so on.
And next about Subhash babu. There is no doubt Subhash Chandra Bose was a great freedom fighter and his contribution to Indian freedom struggle was enormous. But at some point of time, he was against the then existing thought process of how to win freedom. He was forced to quit Congress and he left to start the Forward Block. He went to Germany and met Hitler and consequently the Japanese aggressors. Subhash babu wanted to take Japanese help to liberate India. Japan by then built a reputation to be an aggressor. Just talk to anyone in China/ Vietnam and Korea about Japanese aggression during second world war, I am sure you will hear gory stories much worse than the British rule. As such, how could our leaders trust one colonial power against another? So they did not agree with the military solution. And the Indian National Army all of 25000 soldiers was not in any shape to fight a war much less defend our country in a war that was as long drawn and costly as the second world war. We neither had the numbers nor the wherewithal to do it. In fact Indian independence was the least of concerns of a loosing Japanese army. Worst of all, if the war were to strike India, we were in no shape to face it. Famines and rationing had struck a death blow to a weak population. A war would have swept away our millions like ants in a deluge. Any which case, post war, entire Indian National Congress stood behind the INA and defended them against being treated as prisoners of war similar to the Japanese, though they expressed solidarity with the Japs.
Finally, a word about Nehru. It has become a fashionable to condemn Nehru and Gandhiji and explore conspiracy theories about how they wrecked India. I firmly believe Nehru was a great leader. He was a statesman beyond our imagination. In 1937 when there was a meeting among all the nations subjugated by the colonial powers, all of them unanimously elected Nehru to represent them. NAM, a brain child of Nehru could mobilize 100 nations behind us. Imagine the amount of soft power India held among newly formed nations during Nehru days. Yes, he misjudged the Chinese that cost our nation enormously and left us with an inferiority complex that still persists. Yes, his daughter turned out to be the biggest blot on India's democratic career. But who has not committed mistakes? If you read his 3 books: Glimpses of world history, Discovery of India and his Autobiography, you will understand his devotion to Liberty, Socialism and democracy. I have not read anyone who believed in these ideals so fiercely, mind, body and soul.
I am open to clear my understanding of the Indian freedom struggle. But it has to be based on facts. Not based on conspiracy theories, palace intrigue, heresy or fictional imagination masquerading as facts. Of late, everyone want to talk about "real reasons behind" or
Comments