India should do something for Rememberence Day

[Muloghonto]

17 minutes ago, Moochad said:

Sophistry

nice dodge.  

 

PS: Nothing sophistry about the fact that WWI soldiers fought for us. Our demand then was dominion status, which directly involves us in WWI. That is basic logic consistent with our own demands of the time. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Muloghonto

[Moochad]

17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

nice dodge.  

 

PS: Nothing sophistry about the fact that WWI soldiers fought for us. Our demand then was dominion status, which directly involves us in WWI. That is basic logic consistent with our own demands of the time. 

Coming from you...  You literally never answer a direct question or provide evidence for what you claim, but OK  

 

More sophistry by you. Provide evidence that the soldiers fought for "us". Also when you say "us" do you mean Canadians or Indians? 

 

Do you have a survey of their intentions? After all, you claimed before, that you can't make a statement about peoples opinions without a fully representative survey with stochastic modeling. Or does the goalpost shift when its convenient for you? 

 

Do you have evidence that those soldiers cared two bits about what INC national leadership was demanding? What makes you think so? Is there a survey for this as well?  

 

Please provide some evidence that INC, at least some leaders within it, supporting dominion status had some verifiable link or congruence to what the soldiers, who signed up for the British Indian Army did or thought. 

 

Even if you show the goals aligned, that doesn't mean they were fighting for "us" 

 

Provide evidence for those questions otherwise it is sophistry.

 

[Tibarn]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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


I asked you a direct question. Stop dodging:

 

 

 

 

I certainly am not dodging. In fact, pot meet kettle, it is you who are dodging, since you avoided providing support for the statement that my post was a classic example sophistry. 

 

The consistency argument is a fallacious as well. India's policy should be fluid on the will of the people, new information, new arguments etc. Neither is there a law or constitutional provision on such matters. If Modi tomorrow celebrates Remembrance day, the next day gets assassinated, and then, say, Lalu Yadav is PM in 2019, and decides not to celebrate: both are valid as they are ultimately the will of the electorate, as understood by the government at center, and the PM is ultimately the representative of the will of the people. People are ultimately not going to celebrate those they don't want to and will celebrate those they do.

 

 

Thus your argument is sophistry. 

 

Quote

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

I don't think one needs a single opinion on all of them. I think many were probably just mercenaries/hired guns. Loyalty is only assumed to be toward the government. India can pay money to Ugandans mercenaries as well to fight for the Indian army, but one wouldn't assume they are loyal, per se, to India either. Many people indeed consider the army as a career, nothing more. 

 

I would say there are 2 true categories of sepoys:

1) Those who were mercenaries- no loyalty one way or another, only loyal to money. They don't need to be celebrated.

2) Those who were actually loyal to the British- they certainly shouldn't be celebrated. Just because they suddenly wear an Indian army uniform now doesn't change anything. They wore a different uniform, that of the British before.  

 

If their is a 3rd category of sepoys who were somehow loyal to India before and after the ouster of the British, then I don't see for what reason they would care about Remembrance day. It was a British war on British interests. It has nothing to do with India or Indians. 

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Tibarn

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Moochad said:

Coming from you...  You literally never answer a direct question or provide evidence for what you claim, but OK  

 

More sophistry by you. Provide evidence that the soldiers fought for "us". Also when you say "us" do you mean Canadians or Indians? 

Indians. They fought for us, because INC wanted dominion status in the 1910s. Which means, committal to WWI

1 hour ago, Moochad said:

Do you have a survey of their intentions? After all, you claimed before, that you can't make a statement about peoples opinions without a fully representative survey with stochastic modeling. Or does the goalpost shift when its convenient for you? 

More sophistry. Show us then that those who 'fought for us' in 1971 did so by posting their opinion surveys. This is your benchmark.

1 hour ago, Moochad said:

Do you have evidence that those soldiers cared two bits about what INC national leadership was demanding? What makes you think so? Is there a survey for this as well?  

Irrelevant. Soldiers caring/not caring for Kargil, 1971, etc. does not change their participation and representation of the political entity 

1 hour ago, Moochad said:

Please provide some evidence that INC, at least some leaders within it, supporting dominion status had some verifiable link or congruence to what the soldiers, who signed up for the British Indian Army did or thought. 

This is common knowledge and the fact that you will even ask this, shows your ignorance of history. These are easily verified by Congress's own meetings. We had Dadabhai Naoroji - who prior to Gandhi was the biggest political pillar of the Congress and Gopal Krishna Gokhale on one side, wanting dominion, with Lal-Bal-Pal alliance wanting total freedom. INC sided with Naoroji & Gokhale, with official demand of dominion status, which lead to Lal-Bal-Pal leaving the INC. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Moochad said:

Even if you show the goals aligned, that doesn't mean they were fighting for "us" 

 

Provide evidence for those questions otherwise it is sophistry.

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0x56

 

If the national political party aligns in the goals of the international representation, then yes, they are representing us.

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

I certainly am not dodging. In fact, pot meet kettle, it is you who are dodging, since you avoided providing support for the statement that my post was a classic example sophistry. 

 

The consistency argument is a fallacious as well. India's policy should be fluid on the will of the people, new information, new arguments etc. Neither is there a law or constitutional provision on such matters. If Modi tomorrow celebrates Remembrance day, the next day gets assassinated, and then, say, Lalu Yadav is PM in 2019, and decides not to celebrate: both are valid as they are ultimately the will of the electorate, as understood by the government at center, and the PM is ultimately the representative of the will of the people. People are ultimately not going to celebrate those they don't want to and will celebrate those they do.

 

Sure. And we can change the impression of whether ancestors who fought under auspicies of our own home-grown political reps. and did well, are worth celebrating or not. Just like the impression of Gandhi/Nehru has changed with time as well. 

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

Thus your argument is sophistry. 

 

I don't think one needs a single opinion on all of them. I think many were probably just mercenaries/hired guns. Loyalty is only assumed to be toward the government. India can pay money to Ugandans mercenaries as well to fight for the Indian army, but one wouldn't assume they are loyal, per se, to India either. Many people indeed consider the army as a career, nothing more. 

 

I would say there are 2 true categories of sepoys:

1) Those who were mercenaries- no loyalty one way or another, only loyal to money. They don't need to be celebrated.

2) Those who were actually loyal to the British- they certainly shouldn't be celebrated. Just because they suddenly wear an Indian army uniform now doesn't change anything. They wore a different uniform, that of the British before.  

 

If their is a 3rd category of sepoys who were somehow loyal to India before and after the ouster of the British, then I don't see for what reason they would care about Remembrance day. It was a British war on British interests. It has nothing to do with India or Indians. 

 

this then means any Indian soldier who served under the British, should not be celebrated. Ergo, Manekshaw should not be celebrated. 

 

Would imagine that Indian soldiers who dismantled the last great muslim super-power (even though it was on its way down, we are the ones who actually dismembered it) in a war that our own national congress wanted to participate in, would sit well with hinduvtas, lol.

But then again, hinduvtas know jack $hit of history anyways, so its understandable.

 

[mishra]

On 11/26/2018 at 6:39 PM, Tibarn said:

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

 

 

 

 

   

Read the British take on "Sepoy Mutitny" Indian war of Independence.

 

Seems like Sardarjis and Jats were so pissed with Muslim rule that they siglehandedly won Delhi for Brits.

 

Also the concept of Rape of English women during uprising was manufactured by British writters(at time) to justify the post actions. Also, There was character assaination of Indian soldeirs whereby they threatened to rape "Indian origin women"who were wife of their British Master.

 

Killing of British troupes by Nana Sahib was recorded as, they were burnt alive in their boats.

 

What was done to Indians, requires pages and pages on the forum. BTW those actions were not executed by just white soldiers only. Burning of all the houses visible was done by Indian Soldiers of Raj.

 

Also, there is mention that certain Muslim Villages men attacked and rampaged Hindu villages when fear of British army led Hindus to run away.

Edited November 29, 2018 by mishra

[Muloghonto]

On 11/29/2018 at 5:23 AM, mishra said:

Read the British take on "Sepoy Mutitny" Indian war of Independence.

 

Seems like Sardarjis and Jats were so pissed with Muslim rule that they siglehandedly won Delhi for Brits.

 

Also the concept of Rape of English women during uprising was manufactured by British writters(at time) to justify the post actions. Also, There was character assaination of Indian soldeirs whereby they threatened to rape "Indian origin women"who were wife of their British Master.

 

Killing of British troupes by Nana Sahib was recorded as, they were burnt alive in their boats.

 

What was done to Indians, requires pages and pages on the forum. BTW those actions were not executed by just white soldiers only. Burning of all the houses visible was done by Indian Soldiers of Raj.

 

Also, there is mention that certain Muslim Villages men attacked and rampaged Hindu villages when fear of British army led Hindus to run away.

 

I find the idea that when British describe their attrocities in writing, we should accept it as truth, but when the British describe the attrocities of the 'rebels', its ALL propaganda.....the sources are the same. Sure, there might've been some propaganda, but it is amply clear that Indian troops of that era had zero concept of nation and were okay with rape and genocide when their overlords commanded them to do it. 
We know of the Bargi raids - where Marathas burnt and raped entire villages in an arc from Bihar to Orissa, just so that they could weaken the Nawabs of Bengal and Bihar, despite the fact that these villages were overwhelmingly hindu - not from the Brits, but from the Maratha and Bengali, Bihari and Orya sources themselves. 

 

[Muloghonto]

Btw, 1857 has nothing to do with WWI. They are seperated by 57 years. So no soldier who was party to 1857 - on either side- was serving in WWI.

I simply do not understand the aversion to honor those who destroyed the last muslim superpower in the world (Ottomans), fought a war on foreign soil, acquitted themselves bravely and with honor, when we did not even want to be independent at that time. We wanted to be dominion. Thats in the official Congress demands under Naoroji and Gokhale. The Brits also offered us dominion as specifically meeting the terms to go participate in WWI. INI openly backed WWI efforts. 
So how the heck can we postmortem the whole WWI as 'siding with oppressors', is beyond me.

As i pointed it, its as silly as Tamil Nadu breaking off in 2050, declaring that since Tamils did not vote to join India officially and since there was a Tamil liberation party since 1950s, they should strip Cariappa and all the Tamil members of Indian Army, Navy and Air Force of all honor and rank and negate their gallantry awards in the wars they've fought for India.... 

So would us non-Tamils be okay with this hypothetical scenario 30 years from now ?!?

[mishra]

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

I find the idea that when British describe their attrocities in writing, we should accept it as truth, but when the British describe the attrocities of the 'rebels', its ALL propaganda.....the sources are the same. Sure, there might've been some propaganda, but it is amply clear that Indian troops of that era had zero concept of nation and were okay with rape and genocide when their overlords commanded them to do it. 
We know of the Bargi raids - where Marathas burnt and raped entire villages in an arc from Bihar to Orissa, just so that they could weaken the Nawabs of Bengal and Bihar, despite the fact that these villages were overwhelmingly hindu - not from the Brits, but from the Maratha and Bengali, Bihari and Orya sources themselves. 

 

No, i was mentining British view only. That “manufacturing” is British view only. Albeit modern British view which accepts it. I am not that good at history that i can make such comments about how thing were recorded by Victorian and Georgian era authors

Edited November 30, 2018 by mishra

[Muloghonto]

30 minutes ago, mishra said:

No, i was mentining British view only. That “manufacturing” is British view only. Albeit modern British view which accepts it. I am not that good at history that i can make such comments about how thing were recorded by Victorian and Georgian era authors

How does one determine, when the written records are from British sources only, what is manufactured and what is real ?

Its like taking a book and deciding one passage is real and the other is fiction.

 

You seriously believe that the rebels did not do any butchering and raping, despite the fact that the same rebels did it under the British and Indian rulers alike ?!? That takes some leap of faith IMO.

[mishra]

8 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

How does one determine, when the written records are from British sources only, what is manufactured and what is real ?

Its like taking a book and deciding one passage is real and the other is fiction.

 

You seriously believe that the rebels did not do any butchering and raping, despite the fact that the same rebels did it under the British and Indian rulers alike ?!? That takes some leap of faith IMO.

I am lost here. What are you saying? I am not reading any thing written: concluded by NOT British. They themselves are saying that making up was common practice and differetiate between fact and made up bit by themselves based on extensive research

[Muloghonto]

22 minutes ago, mishra said:

I am lost here. What are you saying? I am not reading any thing written: concluded by NOT British. They themselves are saying that making up was common practice and differetiate between fact and made up bit by themselves based on extensive research

yeah but they don't show the indian rebels to be completely free of rapine pillage, either.  First hand sources for 1857 are not that inaccessible, either. 

Anyways, i am not seeing wtf 1857 has to do with Rememberance day, which is first and foremost FOR WWI. This is about horoing our WWI dead. nothing more, nothing less. Just like how we honor our 1947 deads, who'd just taken orders from London a season ago. I don't see what the gripe against those who served in that war, is. Especially the ones who died gallantly. They didn't come back to shoot at us later on, either. 

[MechEng]

How was the Ottoman Empire more evil than Western Imperialism? I'm aware of Turkish aggression on Cyprus and Armenia, but Brits were no different. In fact present day America is a product of British Imperialism, and roots of terrorism can be traced back to these guys as well.

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, MechEng said:

How was the Ottoman Empire more evil than Western Imperialism? I'm aware of Turkish aggression on Cyprus and Armenia, but Brits were no different. In fact present day America is a product of British Imperialism, and roots of terrorism can be traced back to these guys as well.

Who said they were more evil ?!

I simply said it was the Indian Raj soldiers who destroyed the last muslim super-power in the world. You'd think hinduvta muslim-haters would actually be proud of that, lol.

 

[MechEng]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Who said they were more evil ?!

I simply said it was the Indian Raj soldiers who destroyed the last muslim super-power in the world. You'd think hinduvta muslim-haters would actually be proud of that, lol.

 

Indians earlier never hated muslims as a whole, but bad muslim ruler/kings. Celebrating downfall of Ottoman Empire makes no sense because Indian soldiers were fighting for British power interests and the Turkish kings were relatively more friendly with India than Brits.

[Muloghonto]

42 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Indians earlier never hated muslims as a whole, but bad muslim ruler/kings. Celebrating downfall of Ottoman Empire makes no sense because Indian soldiers were fighting for British power interests and the Turkish kings were relatively more friendly with India than Brits.

Its not about earlier,i mean about NOW. Hinduvtas hate anything muslim - i am yet to see a RSS or BJP guy honor a single muslim king in all of history. Its not like most hindu kings didnt level cities and kill civillians either. So thats what i mean - that you'd think the hinduvtas NOW would celebrate our ancestors who destroyed the last Islamic super-power in the world.

They dont do it, is because 99.99% Hinduvtas are duffers when it comes to history. 

[mishra]

20 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Its not about earlier,i mean about NOW. Hinduvtas hate anything muslim - i am yet to see a RSS or BJP guy honor a single muslim king in all of history. Its not like most hindu kings didnt level cities and kill civillians either. So thats what i mean - that you'd think the hinduvtas NOW would celebrate our ancestors who destroyed the last Islamic super-power in the world.

They dont do it, is because 99.99% Hinduvtas are duffers when it comes to history. 

What is there to honour? Give me name one ruler under whom Local culture flourished or There wasnt religious persecution?

Infact there are more reasons to  celebrate British Raj who let Hindus survive.

 

PS: your knowledge of history is so limited, that  less we talk is better. Atleast others go and do some homework or read books before making some serious statement.

Edited December 3, 2018 by mishra

[mishra]

^ Even in modern world, where there is lot of restraint and explaining to do, Check the state of Coptic Christian or other Christians living in middle east. If that doesnt open your eye, go and live few days in the land of pure. 

See if you can celeberate anything after that.

[Muloghonto]

26 minutes ago, mishra said:

What is there to honour? Give me name one ruler under whom Local culture flourished or There wasnt religious persecution?

Infact there are more reasons to  celebrate British Raj who let Hindus survive.

 

PS: your knowledge of history is so limited, that  less we talk is better. Atleast others go and do some homework or read books before making some serious statement.

There are muslim rulers from Kerala,under whom both the economy flourished AND the local culture did excellently - the Portuguese wrote about these few rulers. There are a few Bong sultanate rulers who actually restored temples. Sher Shah was a better ruler - culturally, economically and logistically than 99% rulers in history of Indian subcontinent. 

A religion predominantly producing A-hole rulers does not mean we cannot celebrate the few not-A-holes around. 

And like i said, if you think that all Islamic rulers are A-holes, then you should be CELEBRATING our ancestors who dismantled the last remaining Islamic superpower in the world.

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Muloghonto

[mishra]

^ again, give me a name. which Ruler of India From past preserved supported local culture? capital of India was Delhi not Tiruvanathpuram. Tiruvanathpuram zamindar had no significance front of throne of Delhi.

Edited December 3, 2018 by mishra