India should do something for Rememberence Day

[Muloghonto]

10 hours ago, Clarke said:

We would have to be very selective in that case, cannot honor those serving anti-Indian interests at all.

 

This war for humankind is a very Western narrative that OP has bought into; they conveniently inflicted tyranny & genocide upon Asia & Africa and talk about humanity the moment they found a competitor more dehumanizing than them at least in WWII.

This is about WWI.

Stick to the point. Rememberance day is primarily oriented towards WWI, thats why it was created in the first place.

And my contention is, since INC itself only wanted dominion status through the 1910s, were total independene movement folks like Lal-Bal-Pal found very little support and were the fringe, it is perfectly rational to honor our troops from WWI. 

How the f*ck can we say these troops fought for someone else, when the DOMINANT ideology of all our home-grown politicians and rights movements people were to be recognized as a dominion of the empire and thus committed to the war anyways ?!?

 

WWI is not about fighitng for good vs evil. That is the WWII angle of Nazis and such. WWI is simply about fighting the triple alliance who were our enemies and triggered war with the triple entente. Simple. No moral superiorism there, its simple military doctrine of you are not morally culpable for a war you did not start but defended from. 

 

[Muloghonto]

10 hours ago, Stradlater said:

They were Indians and did their job which should be appreciated regardless of political and ideological leanings.

Going by that logic no Indian warrior before 1947 is worthy of respect since they were all fighting against one another for their petty vested interests.

The irony is, the same people who want to discredit our ancestors and their valiant sacrifices in WWI, are head-over-heels with the Marthas. Yet, the Marathas killed our own ancestors. Even if we are willing to overlook the direct wars, the Marathas committed the Bargi raids, where they pillaged, raped and annihilated the predominantly hindu villages of Bihar, Bengal and Orissa. So much so that we Bongs have folk songs of 'bargi elo deshe' ( the bargis are comming to our land). 

So the conclusion is, its morally okay to glorify those ancestors of ours, who massacred & raped innocent hindu civillians, just because their rulers were Muslim and it was 'strategically weaking the muslim rulers'. But morally reprehensible to glorify our ancestors, who DID NOT FIGHT OR KILL our own ancestors, but went overseas, to fight in a war, that our own home grown anti-british leaders wanted to participate in. 

 

As another delicious piece of irony,that these ignorant hinduvtas discredit the contributions of our soldiers in WWI, is totally due to ignorance of the salient fact that is OUR ANCESTORS, the BRITISH INDIAN ARMY, that annihilated the last muslim super-power in the world. 
Yes. You read that correctly. OUR ancestors and OUR ANCESTORS ALONE are the main driving factor for the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. We are the ones who committed 80% of the troops to the middle east. We are the ones who liberated Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Israel-Palestine. (Egypt was already under British control). 
The Germans were allies of the Ottomans, The Russian Empire was beaten into a pulp within 18 months of WWI and the British-French troops were committed to the trenches of the western sector. So much so that they needed us, the British Indian Army, to re-enforce the trenches. You can look up the numbers if you wish - the campaign against Ottomans, that LANDED in the ME, were 80% made up of British Indian Army, with about 20% support coming from the French.

Without us, Ottoman empire would not have collapsed. Ergo, without us, we'd have a muslim state, which controlled 40% of the ENTIRE world's oil supply ( Iraq + Saudi + Kuwait + UAE + Qatar). Without us, the sole muslim superpower would've limped on and survived. 

Yet, because they fought under the banner of the British - something our own home grown leaders and activists overwhelmingly wanted us to do- we should forget their sacrifices. Brilliant piece of logic. 

 

[Clarke]

40 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

they are our ancestors. 

They did not fight our people in this war. 

They fought for the British, when the dominant ideology of our own home-grown independence movement was that of Dominion status, not total independence. By dominion status, we'd still be committed to WWI as the British Empire would be running our foreign affairs, like they did with other dominons such as Australia, NZ and Canada. 

Why are our soldiers going to lose out based on hindsight, when in their day and time, their involvement was perfectly rational and just ?!?

 

As i said, you certainly dont find this lack of respect towards sacrifices of ancestors from other nations.

Polish people still respect the Polish battalions of the Russian Empire when they fought the German Empire in WWI. They dont whine that 'oh 50 years prior to that Russia invaded Poland, took over and so our ancestors were fighting for the Russkies, f*ck them'.

 

 

No one's losing anything, its been a century already and its not lack of respect, just apathy for what was essentially the military goals of the British empire. Its up to the British to honor all soldiers that served under them and some of us don't feel the Republic of India needs to do so. 

 

The * would anyone care about what the Poles do; maybe you shouldn't whine so much about copying other nations over events of a century back. 

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Clarke said:

 

No one's losing anything, its been a century already and its not lack of respect, just apathy for what was essentially the military goals of the British empire. Its up to the British to honor all soldiers that served under them and some of us don't feel the Republic of India needs to do so. 

Then why does republic of India respect those soldiers who did not fight for India but their own feudal overlords in 1857 ? Rani of Jhansi did not want total independence of India as a goal, her goal was independence of Jhansi!

Just now, Clarke said:

 

The * would anyone care about what the Poles do; maybe you shouldn't whine so much about copying other nations over events of a century back. 

 

I am simply pointing out, that there are plenty of other nations, who do not trivialize the sacrifices of their ancestors in a war that they did not commit against their own people. Indians, however, seem to do so and its morally reprehensible. Simple. 

[Clarke]

24 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Then why does republic of India respect those soldiers who did not fight for India but their own feudal overlords in 1857 ? Rani of Jhansi did not want total independence of India as a goal, her goal was independence of Jhansi!

I am simply pointing out, that there are plenty of other nations, who do not trivialize the sacrifices of their ancestors in a war that they did not commit against their own people. Indians, however, seem to do so and its morally reprehensible. Simple. 

I repeat, it has everything to do with our soldiers fighting our war for our land etc. The Indian govt and majority of the people see Jhansi ki Rani as a daughter of the land defending it against the foreign conquerer. That is not the same as fighting for the goals of the empire, irrespective of whatever any other country feels about it.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Clarke

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, Clarke said:

I repeat, it has everything to do with our soldiers fighting our war for our land etc.

They wern't fighting for OUR land in 1857. They were fighting for their feudal overlords who were fighting for THEIR land. Rani of Jhansi did NOT have independence of India as a stated agenda. Only Jhansi. 

6 minutes ago, Clarke said:

The Indian govt and majority of the people see Jhansi ki Rani as a daughter of the land defending it against the foreign conquerer. That is not the same as fighting for the goals of the empire, irrespective of whatever any other country feels about it.

So its okay to kill our own ancestors and get glorified for it, when fighting for a feudal overlord concerned over her kingdom. F*ck rest of the nation. But its not okay to glorify our ancestors who did not fight our own but fought for a war that even our own people wanted to fight in,because our overlords were foreign. Brilliant !

 

Its thinking like this, is why India is lagging behind in terms of patriotism in its culture, to many nations like Russia, China, Japan, Germany, etc.

[Clarke]

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

They wern't fighting for OUR land in 1857. They were fighting for their feudal overlords who were fighting for THEIR land. Rani of Jhansi did NOT have independence of India as a stated agenda. Only Jhansi. 

So its okay to kill our own ancestors and get glorified for it, when fighting for a feudal overlord concerned over her kingdom. F*ck rest of the nation. But its not okay to glorify our ancestors who did not fight our own but fought for a war that even our own people wanted to fight in,because our overlords were foreign. Brilliant !

 

Its thinking like this, is why India is lagging behind in terms of patriotism in its culture, to many nations like Russia, China, Japan, Germany, etc.

Do I need to explain all this, that the people identify with Jhansi and it's Rani standing up to the foreigner as opposed to some angrez general or the queen ? You're mixing up a lot of things just so that you can drag on about why India should copy others. 

 

There's a lot to pick up on patriotism but serving a foreign master doesn't make it to the list.

 

 

[Muloghonto]

12 hours ago, Clarke said:

Do I need to explain all this, that the people identify with Jhansi and it's Rani standing up to the foreigner as opposed to some angrez general or the queen ?

But they are not representing India either. They did not fight for India, just like your contention that British Indian Army did not represent India in WWI. 

12 hours ago, Clarke said:

You're mixing up a lot of things just so that you can drag on about why India should copy others. 

Honoring ancestors is a universal trait in humanity, especially when they have sacrificed themselves over a principled stance shared by their own people. 
Your argument is vacuous, akin to Tamils secceeding in future and then nullifying all tamil contributions in Indo-Pak-China wars. 

12 hours ago, Clarke said:

There's a lot to pick up on patriotism but serving a foreign master doesn't make it to the list.

Rule #1 of patriotism - honor thy own heroes, when they act heroically, regardless of which masters they serve. Because at the end of the day, they represented the people of our ancestors, simply because they WERE our ancestors. Patriots do not nullify the contribution of people of their land out of political leanings. 

[mishra]

On 11/17/2018 at 6:10 PM, cricketrulez said:

They did it as a job for an occupier and not worthy of recognition. If you cant see the difference then you can't see the difference between death penalty and murder.

I doubt it. If you read history books, Indian Armys was involved into second world war and Indian parliament opposed it.Gandhi could have made them give up arms during second world war. but he didnt.

I feel millions of Indian soldiers who died fighting for British has somewhere strengthened the hand of Indian politicians while negotiating Indias Independence

[Tibarn]

Disagree with OP, these people were sepoys and thus servants of an occupying power. They only deserve to be shamed. 

 

Those of them who deserve respect are those who rebelled, ie in 1857 or in the British Indian Navy rebellion.   

[Mariyam]

39 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Disagree with OP, these people were sepoys and thus servants of an occupying power. They only deserve to be shamed. 

 

Those of them who deserve respect are those who rebelled, ie in 1857 or in the British Indian Navy rebellion.   

In principle, I agree with you.

 

However, there are numerous instances of rebel Indian sepoys butchering wives and kids of the British army men and the administrative staff of the East India Company. Basically killing unarmed non combatants.

 

This topic isn't as binary as its being made out to be. 

[Tibarn]

10 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

In principle, I agree with you.

 

However, there are numerous instances of rebel Indian sepoys butchering wives and kids of the British army men and the administrative staff of the East India Company. Basically killing unarmed non combatants.

 

This topic isn't as binary as its being made out to be. 

It's not binary per se, but to me it approaches it. The individual rebels who killed noncombatants could be tried/ court-marshaled/condemned/arrested on the merits(or demerits) of their actions, but the sepoys who were loyal to an occupying power are intrinsically engaging in criminal behavior in my eyes. 

 

They themselves were hardly respectable people. Post 1857, in the span of 10 years, these sepoys killed 10 million Indians according to the historian Amaresh Mishra. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/24/india.randeepramesh

 

 

 

 

   

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

Disagree with OP, these people were sepoys and thus servants of an occupying power. They only deserve to be shamed. 

 

Those of them who deserve respect are those who rebelled, ie in 1857 or in the British Indian Navy rebellion.   

Since India did not disband its army in 1947 and recruit afresh, but let these same 'sevants of occupying power' continue serving the new republic, including handing out medals of valor, your argument falls flat.

 

If India can officially decorate those sepoys who continued their careers, they can also decorate those sepoys who fought for us when we were not even sure of independence (and definitely a minority view in Congress in 1914 compared to Dominion-status).

[Tibarn]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Since India did not disband its army in 1947 and recruit afresh, but let these same 'sevants of occupying power' continue serving the new republic, including handing out medals of valor, your argument falls flat.

If India can officially decorate those sepoys who continued their careers, they can also decorate those sepoys who fought for us when we were not even sure of independence (and definitely a minority view in Congress in 1914 compared to Dominion-status).

 

Nope. What the Indian government did in the past has no bearing on what my argument was, since the topic is what India should or shouldn't do in the future. No one here is pretending to be a representative of the Indian government.

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Tibarn

[Moochad]

2 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Nope. What the Indian government does or doesn't do, has no bearing on what my argument was, since the topic is what India should or shouldn't do. 

 

Fought for 'us' by butchering millions of Indians and fighting on behalf of foreigners. 

[Muloghonto]

20 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Nope. What the Indian government did in the past has no bearing on what my argument was, since the topic is what India should or shouldn't do in the future. No one here is pretending to be a representative of the Indian government.

 

So then what is your POV on all the sepoys who simply changed loyalty from British Raj to Rep of India ? 

 

If Indian govt. shouldnt honor the dead of WWI, when our own politicians didnt want independence, maybe they should also revoke the honors and citizenship of the mercenaries who just changed nationality to keep their jobs with the army in 1947. Thats what basic consistency would dictate.

 

PS: Your argument is a classic example of sophistry. 

[Muloghonto]

21 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Fought for 'us' by butchering millions of Indians and fighting on behalf of foreigners. 

Those who died in WWI fought on behalf of us. At WWI period, congress's demands were Dominion status. Not independence. Dominion status demands mean we are obligated to participate. ergo, reprensenting us.

 

PS: we still have people in the army who's killed indians on order of the government ( re: Kashmir, Nagaland,etc). 

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Moochad]

24 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Those who died in WWI fought on behalf of us. At WWI period, congress's demands were Dominion status. Not independence. Dominion status demands mean we are obligated to participate. ergo, reprensenting us.

 

PS: we still have people in the army who's killed indians on order of the government ( re: Kashmir, Nagaland,etc). 

 

Sophistry

[Tibarn]

35 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

So then what is your POV on all the sepoys who simply changed loyalty from British Raj to Rep of India ? 

 

If Indian govt. shouldnt honor the dead of WWI, when our own politicians didnt want independence, maybe they should also revoke the honors and citizenship of the mercenaries who just changed nationality to keep their jobs with the army in 1947. Thats what basic consistency would dictate.

 

PS: Your argument is a classic example of sophistry. 

 

Nope you just aren't consistent with your own thread topic.  On the one hand you ask what posters think people should do in the future, while citing an example of the past. One isn't dependent on the other. 

 

This is a clear case of lack of logical consistency and a disjointed argument.  

 

Pro-tip: your entire post is sophistry.

Give me a source that shows my argument is a "classic" case of sophistry.  

 

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Tibarn

[Muloghonto]

12 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

 

Nope you just aren't consistent with your own thread topic.  On the one hand you ask what posters think people should do in the future, while citing an example of the past. One isn't dependent on the other. 

If one is supporting what happened in the past, then it becomes an issue of consistency. 


I asked you a direct question. Stop dodging:

 

So then what is your POV on all the sepoys who simply changed loyalty from British Raj to Rep of India ? 

 

 

PS: learn to read. Thread topic is not a query, its a directive. 

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Muloghonto