Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Similarities between the recent edits on this page and Australia - India cricket test in Sydney 6th Jan 08

I was watching all the 'mistakes' of umpires and the 'racist slur' of Harbhajan (not visible against a clearly constant movement of Symonds' lips though) in today's news highlights across all Indian channels. And I was watching certain flag bearers of diplomatic policies trying to justify all this in sports spirit. All of a sudden this page and the edit history danced before my eyes.
There are certain editors from cities where Dainik Jagran or Dainik Bhaskar are considered non-Indian entites, the same cities where chief ministers suggest ruining a fragile ecosystem just to prove a certain God was farce. These editors would give their own blazing logics to score brownie points against their compatriots to please their supremacist masters.
Then there are certain editors who have only one point to prove. 'They', 'them' and 'theirs'. Basically, from the family of such supremacist masters of has-been countries - albeit hiding behind other country's flags.
Then there is a simple rule, majority POV is the NPOV.
Then there is a simple logic, majority POV is what the supremacist masters have been feeding for centuries.
In the end, still heartening, and suggestive of the line of action to be taken here as well, was the result of opinion polls on that cricket match. 97% Indians suggested India should leave Australia tour in the middle until it really seemed like cricket. 97% logically brained Indians have already left this page. If the last one trying to be Mahatma Gandhi may also please leave, we would have the kids play all by themselves. This page will ultimately look so lovely that Gunga Dins will also be ashamed, if they have a clearer idea of their origin or ancestry, that is (which collectively become history).
Jvalant, there is no point trying to play cricket against a team comprising of players, umpires and match referees. All we have to do is, boycott so the world realizes. Now it is up to you, to either behave the way most Indians feel, or the way BCCI finance department wants it to feel. Bobby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.53 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Is there s point to this? [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)]]
The point is, I suggest Demolitionman giving you two a complete walk over on this page, so you could play like the aussie cricket team, the record making world champions. So well, that even your NPOV flag bearing supporters are ashamed and accept the fact. --Bobby Awasthi (talk)

Then it should have been posted on his talk page, not here. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)]]

It is posted here to ensure that others who innocently come here under the Wikipedia policy of Assume Good Faith get a chance to read the issues raised here, and think twice before wasting their time thinking their contribution would stay on this page at all, unless it suits BRITISH POV or lets say, Saul David's POV. --Bobby Awasthi (talk)

They can read the talk page, without referance to cricket, or Australia (neither of which are related to the Mutiny). They can then judge the arguments (and the sources) to determine which 'fact' they belive to be the best supported. They do not need to have any errors (or POV lies) pointed out to them if they are obviously so wrong that to proergate them will even cause thier supporters shame.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)]]

I fully welcome any moderate POVs that keep the page sticking to NPOV. What we don't need is pvertly anti-British views being added to the article. I know it seems we're being pro-British here but trust me, we're not. If any such people were editing here you would probally find I would fall on the side of the rebels quite a lot. --Him and a dog 21:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If this were the case then why have not all referances to British attrocities been removed. [[Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)]]

I am waiting for DemolitionMan to go silent and then they would be removed, under some pretext or other. Anyways, half of them have been either removed or diluted with weasel words. If anyone compares the current version with history, it would be all too obvious. Bobby Awasthi (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.61 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This goes back to the heart of the debate unfortunately. Both of you (Steven Slater and Jos) think that you are sticking to the NPOV but carrying on with the basic assumption that the British Empire was a force of good. Similarly, both Bobby and I think we are sticking to the NPOV but carrying on with the basic assumption that the British Empire was a force of evil. Hence, the comparison with the Third Reich. Admittedly, there are pros and cons to the British rule in India. It is natural for the ruler to remember the good that came about from the Empire; similarly it is easy of the enslaved to remember the bad that came about. India might have been a bunch of kingdoms constantly in-fighting and bickering had the British not come around to fill the power vaccum after the Battle of Panipat. It might have also been able to unite if a leader like Asoka, Akbar or Shivaji been around. We will never know. However, at least in modern times, the scope and scale of the past oppression is decided by the oppressed and not by the oppressor. The British will think of the Railways, the abolition of Sati, a British education system - Indians will think of the Bengal famines, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the hanging of Bhagat Singh, the death of Lala Lajpat Rai etc. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never stated that the British empire was a force for good, just that it was not totaly evil. That both sides should be given equal space and consideration. That both sides should obey the same rules, and should appply the same standards. Inead I have said elsewhwere on this page (it may have been archived now) that niether side in this war (the Mutiny) has much to shout about. [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)]]

What DM said first is sort of the source of disagreements. I will say though that though I believe overall the British empire was on the side of 'good' on the black and white scale of the world (i.e. taking into account the sum of the bad things and the good things) this is just my personal opinion and it is not the NPOV I am trying to make the article represent. This viewpoint comes from looking at the history of Britain as a whole and not just this one isolated event in which as Steven says neither side could be called good.

I disagree with the second part of what he says though, he doesn't speak for all of India. Most Indians I know have a fairly neutral opinion of the empire in India, some even see it in a positive light.--Him and a dog 13:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't commoent on what most Indians think, but I suspect that most do not look upon the Raj with any great love. Unfortunatly this is not Wkikindi, and as such should represent the wider view, not just the Indian one. [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)]]

LOL. With the sole exception of Srs, I am yet to meet an Indian who sees the Empire in a positive light. And this isn't Britipedia either. The wider view is synonym with the India thanks to sheer numbers. DemolitionMan (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really no. I guess you're on about the name of the rebellion here and not views of the British Empire? As you won't find many pro empire people outside of academia even in Britain itself (their history has been blackwashed quite thoroughly and its taught in a bad light in schools).
Even assuming all Indians called it the war of independance (which is totally false) thats just 1 billion people, there's another 5 1/2 billion people in the world, of course not all of them are even aware of the event but the vast majority of those who are use the standard name. But anyway, this is going back to old ground, the current name is a decent enough compromise.--Him and a dog 18:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As to some Indians seeing the raj in a good light. Well a quick google brings up some discussions on the topic here is one, you can see few just out and out saying it was evil with some quite reasoned discussion about it including quite a few who come to a positive overall conclusion. --Him and a dog 19:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What makes the 1857 first war of independence "totally false"? 164.164.104.137 (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Definatly not all Indians call it that. It can't be proved one way or the other but I don't think even a majority does.--Him and a dog 10:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

PLenty of sources have ben produced to demonstrate that the claim all Indian call it 1857 first war of independence is false. None has been produced demonstrating that even a majority of Indians call it that, which logicly means that most don't call it that.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Civilians

What do we mean by areas in revolt, just those towns and villages that rose up or larger administrative areas where at least some revolt occurred? [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)]] Thanks for making up for my illiteracy [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Need a review of edits by Yuslo

Hi,

There was an edit done by User:Yuslo on this page, need a peer review of those edits. Chirag (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yuslo's edits seem to be in line with a certain POV and cannot be taken without a pinch of salt. There are no references, citations or sources quoted. Moreover, if you notice the sequence, the ID gives a suspicion of a sock puppet, or proxy editing by one of the existing editors at least. Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.61 (talk)

I can only notice the one edit by him and it seems fairly OK. No major changes just adding in citations needed and that sort of thing.
As for sock puppet suggestions; no way. There's absolutely no reason for it and no indicator of it.--Him and a dog 11:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What order would Bobby be refering to? is h accusing autobot of being a sock puppet? [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Siking the truth

Is the calim that the Punjab remained quite due to a better understanding of the benefits of British rule (which seems to be the claim made in a recent edit) backed up with any sources? [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)]]

I don't think there is any truth to that and I've never seen a source that makes this claim. Punjab had been added to British India fairly recently and the Sikhs in particular were still bitter at the role of Hindu kings in their defeat and so they fought on behalf of the British. The Sikhs were on the forefront of the sack of Delhi and revenge was their main motivation. That's the accepted wisdom anyway. I doubt if six years was long enough for them to have concluded (rightly or wrongly) that British rule was better for them. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thre are a number of claims made as to why the Sikhs aided the EIC. Ranging from (as you say) a desire for revenge to the feeling that the Hindoo Sepoys wee a bit too big for thei boots, and needed teaching a leason in hunility. But I too have seen no source that claims they had any greater understanding of Britsh reforn then the Hinddo's or Muslims. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Yeah, understanding the benefits of Britain more wouldn't make sense at all for the punjab (let alone looking for sources to prove it). The reason I've heard for their major support of Britain was just to enhance their own position in India- both to make the British look on them better and to damage the various hindu kingdoms.--Him and a dog 21:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That also does not make entire sence, given that in the early stages of the revolt are more xoncerted (and unified) Indian response might (but it is unlikly) to have driven the EIC out. It seems to me no more resonalbe to assume they saw grrater benifits remaining under EIC rule then the Hindoo's then it is to assume they understood the power of the British empire more.[[Slatersteven (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Any assertion is hard to disprove but this one seems particularly unlikely. There just wasn't enough time for the Sikhs to have drawn any conclusion about the goodness or badness of EIC rule. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that (1) they would not have been eager to see a powerful Mughal ruler in Delhi given their history with Aurangzeb; and (2) they were mad at the various Rajput and Pahari rulers who had sided with the British against the Sikhs during the Anglo-Sikh wars. Unless a source is forthcoming, I'd say that any statement about the Punjab 'desiring the benefits' of EIC rule should stay on the talk page and not in the article. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems fair to me, but the article should also mention that the Sikhs may have wanted to teach the Sepoys a leason[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)]]

North Central Myth

New research is revealing astounding facts -- the entire view that Sikhs sided with the British in 1857 is false. Patiala, Nabha, Jind and Kapurthala -- the cis-Sutlej Sikhs -- who sent soldiers against Zafar to Delhi, were even anti-Ranjit Singh. They sided with the British both during Maharaja Ranjit Singh's lifetime, and the two Punjab wars.

After Ranjit Singh's death in 1840, his Khalsa army actually took over the control of the Lahore Durbar -- like Bengal army sepoys, Khalsa army soldiers too were 'peasants in uniform'.

After being disbanded in 1849, they fanned out into the Punjab countryside -- during 1857, Mohar Singh, a Khalsa army veteran, declared openly in Bahadur Shah Zafar's favour, going so far as to declare a Khalsa-Mughal Raj in Ropar.

So, it was only the cis-Sutlej Sikhs that supported the British; but, here too, in 1858, at Dera Ismail Khan, in present-day Pakistan, the 10th Sikh Infantry revolted -- British officers and Patiala, Nabha, Jind rulers state on record that they could not trust their soldiers, and that even cis-Sutlej Sikhs were 'getting excited by news from Awadh and the Hindustani areas.'

This is sensational stuff, for the entire 10th Sikh Infantry revolt news has been suppressed -- students of history are simply unaware of the major, pro-Bahadur Shah Zafar role, which included the Benaras-Jaunpur centred revolt of the Ludhiana regiment, Sikhs played during the Independence war. Zafar's proclamations and the 1857 'national song' mentions Sikhs naturally, along with Hindus and Muslims, as patriotic Indians.

No less revealing is the Bombay army role, and the Maharashtra-Gujarat-Karnataka risings -- Bombay army infantry and cavalry units revolted in Kolhapur, Satara, Karachi, Bombay, Aurangabad, Nasirabad, and Ahmedabad. No one knows that Bombay infantry sepoys, one Hindu and one Muslim, were blown apart from a cannon's mouth, in what today, stands as Mumbai's Azad Maidan.

During the 1858 Konkan-West Coast guerrilla fight, which stretched from Raigad and Ratnagiri to Savantwadi, and then onto Udupi and Mangalore, Mahar, Maratha, Kannada and Tulu warriors fought shoulder to shoulder. Nearly every Indian district, whether in the UP-Bihar-MP belt, or Orissa, or Assam-Bengal, or West India, showcases an amazing pattern of 'one Hindu, one Muslim' martyr.

In Jharkhand, a plaque in Chatra even today, commemorates Jaimangal Pandey and Sheikh Nadir Ali.

In Maharashtra, Pathans and Arabs figure prominently in the 1857 Khandesh (Nasik-Jalgaon-Dhule) struggles launched by Bhils and Kolis. In Karnataka, the Gulbarga, Dharwar, Raichur risings saw Lingayat-Ramoshi-Maratha-Muslim participation.

Above all, in Ayodhya, at the site where the Babri Masjid was demolished, Mahant Ramdas and Maulavi Amir Ali, as well as Shambhu Prasad Shukla and Achchan Khan, two religious Hindus and two religious Muslims, were hanged side by side.

It is commonly believed and propagated that the Madras army and the Madras Presidency was bereft of risings -- yet in Madras, at a place called Vaniyambadi, full of Labbai Muslims, the 8th Madras Cavalry rose -- elsewhere, led by Thevar-Vellala sepoys, several the 37th Madras infantry men deserted. Then in Vellore, in 1858, Madras army sepoys killed their British officers.

In the Andhra-Telangana country, Girijan tribes of the coastal-Godavery belt rose under a Reddi leader and a Muslim-Pathan ex-soldier; in Adibalad and Warangal, and Cuddapah and Nellore in Rayalseema, Pathans and Sheikhs formed a small army with Gond and Kapu help.

In Kerala, Moplah agitators, helped by Ezhavas, the Kerala scheduled castes, and Namboodri Brahmins, staged risings in the Malabar region.

IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS; PERHAPS SAYING THAT THE WoI was confined to North-Central India is wrong. Does anyone have any problem is this is corrected? DemolitionMan (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that almost the entire comment above was lifted verbatim from [1], a discussion of Misra's forthcoming book(s). Some of Misra's "facts" are rather unverifiable assertions. HLGallon (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the mutiny/revolt/war was confined to the North Central area seems almost a consensus in all the history I've read, including fairly recent Indian texts. If, however, you have specific citations for the assertions listed above, and these are from reasonable sources, I wouldn't have any problem with removing that statement. Much of the history of India during that period is murky and uncertain and I agree that the picture is changing with the recent spate of research and rethought. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Les of a revolt and more of a civil war then [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Leaving aside nationalist claims and counter-claims, I have researched DemolitionMan's points as best I can. Two mutinies occurred at Dera Ismail Khan. In 1857, there was unrest apparently among Hindu soldiers only, of the 3rd Punjab Infantry, which was suppressed. The 59th Bengal Native Infantry stationed at the same post, were disarmed.[2] The 10th Punjab Infantry were raised after the outbreak of the Rebellion, and mutinied to some degree at Dera Ismail Khan in 1858, but the only source I can find referring to this is an editorial in the Times Of India [3] No readily available British source mentions it, and the mutiny does not seem to have concerned the authorities at all.

The Wikipedia article does mention instances of unrest among the Bombay and Madras armies of the East India Company. While the instances listed by DemolitionMan no doubt all took place, it is unarguably the case that large numbers of British troops had to be deployed to North Central India to defeat the Rebellion, and practically none to the south, north-east and north-west. At some later date, articles on the Hindu and Moslem leaders (martyrs if you like, though the term is inherently POV) mentioned can be created, but to give undue prominence in the main article where comparatively minor fighting took place would affect its readablility and distort its overall narrative, in my opinion, of course. HLGallon (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover none of the incidents outside North/Central India seem to have affected the EIC ability to make war. No large scale commitments of tropps seem to have been amed or kept. As has been said before, it was the lack of a wider mass national rising that enabled the EIC to beat the Mutineers. In the Punjab the EIC was able to largley strip it's garrisions and use those troops else where in Bengal presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The lack of a British source is quite irrelevant. And stating facts will aid the readability of the article, not impair it. These facts will be added shortly. No fighting is minor. The fact that various resistances were organized across the length and breadth of the country proves beyond an iota of doubt that this was indeed a national uprising or war of independence, albeit without an organized central leadership. DemolitionMan (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the national character of the uprising. What we know about the mutiny is that almost all the fighting was confined to North and Central India. There may have been sporadic outbreaks elsewhere but the reality is that it was troops from the Madras and Bombay Presidencies combined with new recruits from the Punjab and the opportunistic entry of the Gurkhas that defeated the likes of Nana Sahib, Tantia Tope and the Rani of Jhansi. Dislike for the British rule may have been national, and there may have been sporadic unrest elsewhere, but to call it a national uprising or a war of independence that was truly national in character is stretching history as we know it. That the British almost lost India in the Hindi heartland is quite clear, if the unrest had been everywhere, the outcome could, and probably would, have been very different. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What evidacne is there that the resitance was organised across the whole nation, what evidance is thre for a concerted and co-ordinated revolt?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Who said there was a co-ordinated revolt? It was not co-ordinated - been saying that for ages. Resistance was all over the country - read the above paragraphs and sit with a map of India. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to clarify, as in the above paragraph you say 'The fact that various resistances were organized across the length and breadth of the country proves beyond an iota of doubt that this was indeed a national uprising or war of independence,'.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Debate over name of conflict

Someone has changed "In Britain" to "Outside India". I would like a reference from the all the countries who are bonafide members of the U.N. to ascertain this. If not, I shall be removing it shortly and reverting it to what it was. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd change it back. As it stands, the text reads 'In India', 'Outside India', and 'Other parts of the world'. Seems to be a POV change.--RegentsPark (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The old wording (in Indian and the rest of the world) is also POV, and no source has been provided to show that all the countries who are bonafide members of the U.N call it the first war if independance. Or indead that it is widley called that outside India by anyone.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Nope - read it again. It doesn't say "Rest of the World" anywhere. It merely states the common term in India and common term in the UK. I have no proof to back up the wild claim that that it is known as the WoI outside of the Indian Sub-continent. Equally, it is ludicrous to state that the rest of the world calls it "Sepoy Mutiny" or some such as there is no data to back this wild claim either. DemolitionMan (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

So we are agreeing to keep he wording as it is? That it's onlt called the first was of independacne in India?[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)]]

All I am saying is that "rest of the world" is a sweeping statement that can't be used by the right-wing fringe lunatic nationalists like me nor by the union jack waving, "I can't get over the diminished status of the UK today" suffering Brits. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So then we are saying that we should stick with the phrasiolgoy In India... In Britain... and are allowig niether side of the argument to claim support for thier name outside their given nation?[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)]]

No, we are saying do not make a sweeping statement without having the data to back it up. Rest of the world includes all countries. If you can provide a source for each country outside of India and the UK which use a certain term - by all means, use it. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So what phraseiology shuld we use?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

RFC/DemolitionMan

I have filed an RfC on DemolitionMan's continuing disruption on this page. All are welcome to comment. Ronnotel (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has had some POV problems in the past. The cleanup since I last viewed it is a credit to Wikipedia, and enhances the entire project. For those of us who love The Empire, and all that is good for which it stood, it is probably a bit too Bolshie. For the anti-Imperialists it is probably an apologia for a bygone era. In short, it is close to what the future may say about The Mutiny. As an aside, I think the evils of Suttee Ghat and Cawnpore Well are underdone, as is the wonderful humanity of the British public, who quite rightly demonised the Mossriders and those who overreacted to the brutal slaughter of innocent women and children, yet said nothing about the vermin who chose to make war on children in the first place. As always, one is proud to be of British extraction. DylanThomas (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say. Are you saying the the British public overreacted to murderers on the Briths side, but ignored those on the rebel side. Or are you saying the the article should say more about the British public ignored rebel British whilst condeming those carried out by the mutineers.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)]]

I'm not sure what he's saying either, but Dylan Thomas is a)dead b)drunk and c)Welsh, any of which would get him a pass on intelligibility... Tomandlu (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he's saying the article has made good progress towards being truly NPOV. However he believes it should also incorporate a bit more on the good things the British did/bad things Indians did during the war.--Josquius (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure the British did do anything overly good during the mutiny, but certainly it needs to adddress the issue of Indian attrocities.[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)]]

I tentatively agree - certainly with the former and probably with the latter. By "atrocity" would we mean the deliberate killing of women and children? My general impression is that this was fairly widespread, and this is not really covered in the article. However, if there are legitimate concerns about those claims, or relevant counter-claims, then they should be heard. Tomandlu (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we start by giving more importance to Bahadur Shah Zafar's children killed by the British? DemolitionMan (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the British atrocities which have been underplayed and thus need to be highlighted to give it a more balanced perspective. The alleged Indian atrocities have already been exaggerated. DemolitionMan (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you might meet us half-way? Tomandlu (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Indian attrocities are not alleged, they happened. Reading through it does still slightly lean in the rebel's favour but I guess that sort of thing is inevitable in articles on non-20th/21st century big guy vs. small guy wars.--Josquius (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This has drifted a bit. So lets try to drag it kicking and screaming back onto topic. Did the Free French execute any Children, How many adults did they kill without trial? DID the native rulers deport their own citizens to British death camps?[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)]]

For example the attempt to pretend that there were no killing of civilians by the Sepoys at Merrut, or the fact that no time frame is given for the killing of civilians by Sepoys at Delhi(even though one is given for the British killing civilians at Delhi). Moreover a huge amount of space has been given over to British atrocities; there is hardly any devoted to Indian ones. Also there are a number of disclaimers (or caveats) regarding Indian atrocities, there is no covering British ones, there should be equal column soace given to each sides claims of beastleyness.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)]]

To be honest, whatever I can see in this section, as a response to a fairly neutral stand taken by Dylan Thomas, is a POUNCE ON THE OPPURTUNITY to incorporate a bit more on the good things the British did/(still to be found in any single non-British history book), and as usual HIGHLIGHT THE bad things Indians did during the war as is done by ANY OTHER SIDE IN THE WORLD FACING BRITISH MEDIA of 20th century.

If The Indian attrocities are not alleged, they happened; I challenge any editors with the slightest iota of neutrality to counter my statement that British attrocities are not alleged, they happened as well and still find lesser mention than due.

THIS ATTITUDE of self-praise/self-denial is kiddish to speak the least and sickening to anyone trying to maintain neutrality despite public display of POV pushing by an internet-access-advantage-group with questionable resources. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

pfff, I just sorted out what he said. It seems quite CLEAR to ME that is what Dylan SAID.
Grow up out of the British propeganda accusations, I've said this many times before; I'm Irish! Our nationalists would have us believe we have a lot more of an excuse to hate the British then the Indians do. I just favour telling history in a neutral, truthful way rather then falling into 'OMG the evil English!!!111' at every turn (as my views were close to as a kid when I saw the world in concrete black and white). And as for your accusation that the only sources have been British ones (and obviously very pro-Britain because of it): you really need to understand the British mindset more; many of them just love attacking their government, making it out to be the bad guy, etc...A particular point must be made that the official, government sanctioned view of history at the moment is quite totally ANTI-EMPIRE.
It just makes sense for British historians to write more on this then most other countries, it is a relatively minor event in overall history but it's fairly important in 19th century British history.
To get back to productive matters: The British attrocities are fully mentioned, large chunks of the article is turned towards them. --Josquius (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"I'm Irish", - standard excuse to camouflage British Patriotism.

"Oh! We British are enough to hammer out the truth from our government" - standard excuse to camouflage British Patriotism again.

"It is a very minor event in British history, we are here only for the sake of truth", - standard excuse to camouflage British Patriotism yet again.

"Grow up out of the British propeganda accusations", - accept what is British POV.

To get back to productive matters, if we need to cover ALL British attrocities, it would require another article of an EVEN LONGER length. Btw, the devil's wind is the only visible section covering British attrocities and it is only 805 words compared to 9265 words in the entire article. Is that LARGE CHUNK. My mathematics is weak. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As would the coverage of all Indian atrocities, neither side in this conflict has any claim to moral authority. Both sides butchered women and children, and executed prisoners. Sections that mention British atrocities word count (not total for each section total for sentences dealing with beastly acts) Delhi 158 Cawnpore (Kanpur) 276 The Devils wind 805 (about 8%) on its own, with the other sections its around 10% of the article. I would say that’s a lot, especialy as some of it remains un-sorced. Moreover there are many attempts to justify these actions.

Sections that mention Indian atrocities I shall leave out meerut as attempts have been made to claim it was just a wild rumour. Delhi 313 Cawnpore (Kanpur) 146 Jhansi 12 Or about 472 words ( less then 5% of the total article). So twice as much space is given over to exposing British attrocities then Indian ones. [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]]

And this difference in % is too low as it is. The percentage devoted must be in equal measure to the atrocities committed, which were far more on the British on the basis of information provided by non-British sources. As it is, what were the Brits doing there anyways? Did they land up in Lucknow and Kanpur because they lost their way from London to Edinburgh? DemolitionMan (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have only two questions after which I am not going to break my head with a patriotic British kid trying to restore his nation's pride after reading a lot of patriotic propaganda:

1. What was the number of Indians killed (roughly estimated at 100,000 as per THY QUEEN'S sources); compared to what was the number of the glorious, charitable, kindhearted British ones?

2. Does NPOV stands for BALANCING ACT? So we are now rewriting the Devil's wind section with the sole motive of giving it the RIGHT PERSPECTIVE (read balance with British casualties). I thought Wikipedia wants to be a knowledge bank, and NPOV means Neutral Point of View.

By the way DM's question is also there just trying to understand the logic of all these attempts towards making us realize the British side of pain and deaths. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The number killed does not affect the amount of space it should receive. A crime of mass murder is a crime of mass murder, being more efficient does not make you more guilty (or less guilty id you not as good at it). Nor is it relevant what the British did before the Mutiny (except where those acts may have been a factor in its creation), the page is about the Indian Mutiny, not Indian history as a whole. Nor am I saying that you should re-write the devils wind, just we should stop glossing over or trying to justify acts of murder (from wither side, to my mind I do not care what a Childs race, religion or nationality is, it’s a murdered child (by the way how many children did the British murder?). Yes it does mean balance, all side’s views are represented, and no view is given more prominence then another. NPOV means that no one POV is given preference or prominence, you let the reader decide what is true, you just give him the options. A sto your last point I’m not sure what you re trying to say. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Bobby- you seem to not only have completely missed tha mark with what I meant but in many cases you also quoted something totally different to what I said...
I agree withwhat Steven says here. So much shouldn't be put into excusing attrocities by either side, a lot of it was quite tit-for-tat: Indians kill British civilians which pisses off British soldiers so they kill civilians which pisses off the rebels, etc.... And a lot more weight is indeed put into British crimes in the article. If you are so convinced that the rebels were in the right then surely that they commited mass murder should be a point you would make even more? i.e. in the vein of the fuss that's made when western forces accidently kill a few civilians.--Josquius (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point Jos. British soldiers kill Indian civilians and this becomes a vicious cycle - the blame would be equal if it happened on neutral ground. If someone enters my house and I end up shooting him, is not the same as me entering someone else's home and shooting him. There is a difference between murder in cold blood and manslaughter in self-defence. What were the Brits doing in Meerut, Lucknow and Delhi in the first place? DemolitionMan (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

They owned them. It was part of their house. Technically it was the British who were acting in self defence- it was the rebels who started the rebellion.
Or to go to the other side of things and use another silly analogy and assuming the loyalist forces were all foreigners with no right to be there (totally wrong of course)- if someone were to come into my house and kill my wife that would be bad. If I was to suddenly kill my wife however that would be a lot worse.
But this kind of thing is missing the point. This is supposed to be talk about the article on the rebellion, not a debate on colonialism itself.--Josquius (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that there can never be an excuse for deliberately killing unarmed civilians. If a man breaks into my house, and brings his child along do I have the right to protect my self, yes is I use reasonable force, but do I have the right to kill the child in cold blood? A child that has not chosen to be there, or be my enemy. No I do not believe I (or any one else) have that right, under any circumstances. If we were just talking about solders death the house breaking analogy would have validity, but we are not talking about solders.[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Jos - No, they didn't. Jhansi was an independent state. Bahadur Shah Zafar was the Emperor of Delhi. Lucknow was owned by the House of Oudh. And this topic can't circumvent the topic of colonialism. Without colonialism this series of events wouldn't have happened. The line of thought at least in India and in the USA is that colonialism was inherently wrong. And not looking at colonialism is like asking one to write an article on Warsaw Ghetto Uprising without taking Nazism into account. DemolitionMan (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jos: To use your logic - since Nazi Germany had captured Poland it was rightfully their land - hence the burden of death should rest equally on Nazi soldiers and Jewish rebels? DemolitionMan (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about millitary deaths (unless the British armed 8 year olds, and women) we are talkng about civilian deaths. [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Yes, we are talking about civilian deaths, which were far more on the Indian side. We should also be talking about atrocities committed against POWs like having them blown off canons. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Lets get one thing clear; there was no 'Indian side'. This wasn't a straight war of Britain vs. India. There wasn't yet a India for there to be a Indian side. This war was a case of Britain and a few groups of Indians vs. other groups of Indians (who were also vs. each other in many places).
Of course more Indians died, the war was in India. There was more of them to be killed. A lot of these deaths came about due to the rebels though so the actual numbers of 'who killed more'- rebels or loyalists, is not so clear cut. --Josquius (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I can still hear the war cry of Cawnpore coming through all these sentences, it is stupid to waste time with kids trying to eulogize their ancestors because propaganda worked well for generations now. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You obviously know nothing of the British education system if that is what you think.
Even worse though is you're not even aware of my nation's existance :(
Its a sad state of affairs that some of us get taught real history as opposed to the nationalist propeganda which still holds sway in parts of some countries. FYI that kind of stuff hasn't been taught in Britain since the 60s at the very latest. In Ireland we had it too but it was pretty much in line with the kind of stuff you come out with just with a few of the names and dates changed. --Josquius (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So the French resistance against the Nazis in occupied France was not really a French one? After all the Vichy regime was allied to the Nazis. They were the loyalists and the likes of De Gaulle were the rebels. DemolitionMan (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How many independent French states were attacked by the marquee? How many French whose only crime was trading with the Germans were killed? How many children did the marquee kill? What percentage of German forces ion France were French (those active engaged in military operations)? Did any area of France see no partisan activity?[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Analogy can only take you so far. As Steven says this one is not so good even disregarding the UK=nazis jibe.
It fails in more ways then he mentioned even, Vichy was never actually part of the axis and at war.
The mutiny was more like the kind of rebellion that happened in earlier European history then the modern WW2. --Josquius (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How is that a jibe? It is a fact. If you read Mein Kampf, Hitler clearly states that the blueprint for the Third Reich was the British Empire. Vichy France was part of the Axis. This is what Wikipedia itself states.

"Pétain and the Vichy regime willfully collaborated with Nazi Germany to a high degree. The French police organized raids to capture Jews and others considered "undesirables" by the Germans in both the northern and southern zones. As soon as it had been established, Pétain's government took measures against the so-called "undesirables": Jews, métèques (immigrants), Freemasons, Communists — inspired by Charles Maurras' conception of the "Anti-France", or "internal foreigners", which Maurras defined as the "four confederate states of Protestants, Jews, Freemasons and foreigners" — but also Gypsies, homosexuals, and, in a general way, any left-wing activist. Vichy imitated the racial policies of the Third Reich and also engaged in natalist policies aimed at reviving the "French race", although these policies never went as far as the eugenics program implemented by the Nazis. The internment camps already opened by the Third Republic were immediately put to a new use, before ultimately inserting themselves as necessary transit camps for the implementation of the Holocaust and the extermination of all "undesirables", including the Roma people who refer to the extermination of Gypsies as Porrajmos. An October 1940 decree authorized internments of Jews on the sole basis of a prefectoral order, and the first raids took place in May 1941.[6]" The USA, Australia, Canada, USSR all granted recognition to the Vichy regime.

In the autumn of 1940, the French colonies of Cameroon, Chad, Moyen-Congo (Middle Congo), Oubangui-Chari and French Equatorial Africa joined the Free French side. With the addition of French African colonies came a large number of African colonial troops. The French South Pacific colonies of New Caledonia, French Polynesia and the New Hebrides joined the Free French later. Saint-Pierre and Miquelon (near Canada) joined the Free French after an "invasion" on 24 December 1941. The South Pacific colonies would become vital Allied bases in the Pacific Ocean.

From July to November 1940, Free French forces fought French troops loyal to Vichy France during the West African Campaign.

There you have your answers. DemolitionMan (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of this part of history, a quick wikipedia scan gets you all that stuff. Vichy held territory was attacked a few times but Vichy was never a part of the Axis and never officially at war with the Allies though a few computer games do like to make it such purely for gameplay reasons. Wikipedia itself (and many, more reputable sources) makes its situation quite clear.
And no Britain=Nazis is not a fact at all. That's heading in the direction of the sort of thing that got you banned. I'm not even going to bother to explain why something so untrue is such. Nazi comparisons are overdone these days especially on the internet, it doesn't reflect well on you.
Also; could you stick to the topic? This is meant to be about giving rebel crimes just as much attention as loyalist ones, not a WW2 debate...--Josquius (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually got banned for a sex joke, not a debate. Anyways, you can't have separate set of rules for white nations than you have for brown or black ones. The UK sank the the Vichy French navy - isn't it? If that was not war, what was it - friendly fire? And it is not possible to look at this topic in isolation - you want to look at it without looking at colonialism, without taking into account how other rebellions are seen by history. That is simply not possible. From the way you are arguing, it would seem to me (and I could be mistaken) that you claim that when a white nation fights white occupiers it is for its own good, but brown people (natives) fighting white occupiers are just rebels. DemolitionMan (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This has drifted a bit. So lets try to drag it kicking and screaming back onto topic. Did the Free French execute any Children, How many adults did they kill without trial? DID the native rulers deport their own citizens to British death camps? Can we please stop have accusations of raceism? [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Of course we can stop accusations of racism. Once the racism itself stops. For Free French atrocities see Marocchinate Alphonse Pierre Juin gave the troops 50 hours to run amok. And for his work he was made a Marshal of France post war. DemolitionMan (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care. That has nothing to do with what we're meant to be discussing here.
The only thing close to racism I can see is the constant "He's British! They teach their children that their country's behaviour has always been as white as their skin! Don't listen!" rubbish.--Josquius (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic. Provided with irrefutable evidence gives a "I don't really care" response. And don't lie - I never said anything about the British educational system. As you can see in the Free French page, there is no mention of Free French atrocities - because of the fact they were fighting the Nazis. So why should this be any different? DemolitionMan (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the mutineers weren't fighting the Nazis, not by a long shot.
Though I'm certain something is mentioned about 'Free French' crimes somewhere on wikipedia, this mostly came post-liberation though with the collaborater witch hunts so its probally there.
I can't be bothered to look back for you saying anything about British propeganda (though I'm certain it is there further up the page) but Bobby said it just a few paragraphs up.--Josquius (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it so different from the Nazis? They were both in lands that were not rightfully theirs. They were occupying these by force - after all, these were all independent states. And if you look at it from a neutral perspective, there isn't much to choose between the Nazis and the British Empire. So on what basis are you claiming that these can't be compared? What is good for the goose, should be good for the gander. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The troops in question were French North African colonial troops, not troops native to the area. The Area was not in France but a former Axis country that had surrendered. The Mutineers committed atrocities in their own country against their own people. You are right there are analogues to the Nazis; they also killed their own people in their own country for not belonging to the right section in society (or having the wrong politics). I agree though that the atrocities should be mentioned on the Free French page, have you requested or made that change? [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Britain=Nazis is not a fact at all. That's heading in the direction of the sort of thing that got you banned. I'm not even going to bother to explain why something so untrue is such.

:AND
:I can't be bothered to look back for you saying anything about British propeganda (though I'm certain it is there further up the page) but Bobby said it just a few paragraphs up referring to a quote from the same person's statement,"Grow up out of the British propeganda accusations"(I never write propagenda anyways, it is visible) or was it referring to "it is stupid to waste time with kids trying to eulogize their ancestors because propaganda worked well for generations now" (which could have applied to EITHER side).
: I hereby assume I have the right to state that Josquius is A. trying to threaten and hence, throttle the opponent (namely DemolitionMan by referring to an earlier action against him without any connection to current scenario whatsoever. B. making a false allegation amounting to slander against another user namely Bobby Awasthi who does not subscribe to his POV.
Most of the arguments done here on this page are AGAINST the Wikipedia policy of No Original Research. Most cleanup/editing done by certain users comes under that category, in absence of references/citations/sources and in presence of mere logic. I would question what kind of any encyclopaedia is under formation. (May the intelligent communist reappear, desperate to give his own version of Jawaharlal Anna's Nandigram). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Its quite clear that you weren't referring to your own side.--Josquius (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you define what you mean by original research.[[Slatersteven (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]]

No Petain was a white French guy. He was the one who gave permission to the colonial troops to run amok. This is a documented fact of history. A defeated Axis power was one which was occupied by the victors, so technically it was no longer an Axis country but one which was under Allied Rule. And the parallels between the Nazi Regime and the British Empire are quite apparent to any neutral observer...both occupying land over which they had no right. However, in almost all pages the atrocities of the Nazis get prominence over those of the Allies....because the ends at times justify the means - why should this be any different? DemolitionMan (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a neutral observer when it comes to the nazis.
These 'parallels' between Britain and the Nazis you point out are pretty much the same as in any pre-20th century nation. Off the top of my head I really can't think of a nation which hasn't at some point taken land which wasn't originally its own (and please, don't start posting reams of wikipedia quotes to disprove me. Just say which nations if you feel the need to enjoy a little victory).
The end didn't justify the means in the case of the mutineers. They were far more bloody then the WW2 allies (whose crimes were mainly a few isolated incidents as opposed to a campaign of murder) and their end was far from the noble independance of a democratic India (a British invention), they just wanted to restore it to its old feudal masters.
Also you may disagree with it but the EIC did have a right to the lands it held in India, you may feel free to disagree with it morally but legally it was theirs and no one disputed this (except in rebellion of course). The same was not true for the Nazis. --Josquius (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Petan was not the Guy who gave the order (that was General Augustin Guillaume). He was the ruler of Vichy; the incident to which you refer was carried out by Free French forces, hostile to the Petan regime. That is the documented fact of history (unless you can provide a source to say otherwise), unless you mean another martial of France. The Nazis gassed 11+ million people, did the British? The Nazis carried out a systematic program of Eugenics, did the EIC? Did the British kill their own race because they did not like their politics (the Indians did)? By the way is it not true that a in a number of Instances the Mutineers forced native rulers at gun point to swear alliance to the Moghal emperor (those nazis).[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Let's see. When the British ruled India there was a famine in India every 4 years. Before they came in, there was one every century. After they were thrown out, there hasn't been a single one. And there is a line of thought about the Genocide in Bengal as well.

http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/07/17/pro-british-and-amateurish-hitler-in-denial-of-mass-killing/

And how did Britain have a legal right to that land? On what basis? DemolitionMan (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Bengal genocide. And a famine every 4 years is a gross exageration, there may well have been more under Britain but then India's population also increased quite a bit at the time of British rule and a lot of traditional sources of population control were removed. Of course there were some bad points in the British rule but incompetance != deliberate genocide. Please don't make light of the Nazis.
The EIC owning the land- well it was theirs! They owned it fair and square under international law. You need to bare in mind that international law and standards of behaviour for nations in the modern world cannot be applied to 250 years ago. --Josquius (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply because you say there is no such thing, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Turks keep denying the Armenian genocide as well. A famine every 4 years is a gross exaggeration? Perhaps you should write to the Nobel Committee to take back Amartya Sen's Nobel Prize. I am not making light of the Nazis - however, given that Nazis unleashed their reign of terror for a mere decade, compared to the UK's 150 years.....it is fair to say, that the Brits did far more damage - from burning the eardrums of the Mau-Mau rebels to the Amritsar Massacre. These could easily have been committed by Nazis - there is no real difference between the two. "They owned it fair and square under international law" - really? I would like to read that clause, what is your source for this law? DemolitionMan (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually feel a bit sick that anyone can claim to believe this rubbish. Have you ever been to Auschwitz? The sheer scale of Birkenau is just something that you have to see for yourself. And that was just one camp.
You're even pissing on the name of your heroes with this rubbish; the Indian independance movement was put on hold for a few years with the recognition that the Nazis were just a completely different scale of evil. Had the British empire been the Nazis do you really think they would have allowed such a peaceful movement to develop? --Josquius (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that the Mau Mau also operated in India at the time of the Mutinyis there a source for this? 1148-1159 Eleven years' famine in India.
1344 1345 Great famine in India, when the Mogul emperor was unable to obtain the necessaries for his household. The famine continued for years and thousands upon thousands of people perished of want.
1396-1407 The Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years.
There were 14 famines in India between 11th and 17th century (Bhatia, 1985). That’s two a year, not one a

Opps maths was out that’s 2 a century, not one. [[Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)]]

century.
In 1966 the United States allocated 900,000 tons of grain to fight the famine in Bihar. After independance I belive. 1975 Famine in Gujarat (the second in 2 years) & Maharashtra, India

1987 Famine in Saurashtra, India

If you would like more I will try to find them.

Finally, it is estimated by the census commissioners that in the famine of 1901 three million people died in the native states and only one million in British territory. Oh those genocidal Indians. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Census commissioners - what a trustworthy source! Jos, good you brought up the concentration camps - if you read a bit more, then the inmates at Buchenwald were given more nutrition than the Indians at British "relief camps" - the idea was to see how much could the native be pushed for the minimal amount of food. Sounds a lot like the Nazis to me.

Also, I am still waiting on that International law cause which you used to justify occupation of bonafide Indian lands.

And Steven, there is a difference between droughts and famines. I would like sources on them being declared famines. They were droughts, not famines. Big Difference. DemolitionMan (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As you know fine well international law is not (or rather was not, the LON and UN did put a lot into writing much later on) a literal written set of laws. It is just the standards of behaviour by which nations of the world are expected to act.
Relief camps:
1: Utter rubbish that they were typically fed less then concentration camp victims.
2: They were relief camps. Camps formed to help people because there was a famine. A lack of food was what led to their creation, it should be expected.
You're really showing yourself to be quite ignorant of the British system to believe cencus commissioners would lie, if there are problems its not their fault is it?--Josquius (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Now for those sources.

http://www.swaminarayan.org/activities/relief/famine87.htm

http://swaminarayan.org/activities/relief/famine75.htm

The Political Uses of Crisis: The Bihar Famine of 1966-1967 Paul R. Brass The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Feb., 1986)

FAMINE (Lat. fames), extreme and general scarcity of food. What we see is an attempt to define famine by means other then a scarcity of food. By it’s cause not its effect. And an effort that does not apply the same standards to those famines that occurred under British rule (how many of those were the result of (and as such not famines) drought). [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Not some charity site..some agency declaring it a famine. From what I understand, 1966 in Bihar was a "near miss". But there has been no famine in India since independence.

And run a search. Even the term "concentration camp" was coined by the Brits to describe the camps which hosted Africans during the Boer War. And here are sources which back up that Brits gave less food to Indians than the Nazis gave in Buchenwald. Calling facts "utter rubbish" isn't going to make an iota of a difference. And I am still awaiting some kinda of concrete backup on the "international law" statement. "Accepted standard of behavior"???? By whom? Certainly not by Indians. Slavery was accepted standard of behavior - doesn't mean the African Americans agreed with that model. DemolitionMan (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=5516

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,761626,00.html

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060621/edit.htm#6 DemolitionMan (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, here is the list of famines in India - I don't see a famine after 1947 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

What you have posted there are a few isolated articles which purposfully go against what are the accepted facts. They are not proof, they are quite the opposite in fact.
And stop being ignorant with international law, I've already explained it and you knew what I meant to begin with. On slavery: Yes, that too was acceptable and perfectly normal by the standards of the day. I of course find it wrong and not a good thing but you need to realise that the world was a different place hundreds of years into the past, different standards applied both for good and bad- i.e. the stuff 19th century reformers came out with and was thought to be very radical at the time is the norm for politians today. We still see them as important, historical good guys though.
Concentration camps- blimey, you're joking surely? Its accepted historical fact (except amongst Afrikaner nationalists of course) that the SA concentration camps were meant to be just that- camps where people were concentrated. They were actually intended to be a humanitarian gesture; rather then leaving the non-combatants in the wilds to die they would instead be taken care of until the fighting was over. True the execution was really pretty rubbish but the theory was perfectly sound and honorable. The nazi death camps were a entirely different thing altogether, its these which have people make these knee jerk reactions at the words.--Josquius (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

1. "Accepted facts" as opposed to "unaccepted facts"? Facts remain facts, irrespective of whether they are accepted or not.

2. I am not being ignorant about it - you simply said that UK taking over Indian kingdoms was legally sound according to the laws of the time; I merely want to know which laws you are referring.

3. Slavery was not acceptable everywhere. There wasn't much of a slave culture in India.

4. A perfectly sound theory with a screwed up practical execution is not an excuse by any stretch of imagination. On the face of it the invasion of Iraq was based on a perfectly sound theory - that simply just does not justify what is currently going on there.

5. Are you denying that Hitler himself said that he wanted to follow the British Empire model for his Third Reich?

6. Are you denying that the calorie intake given to Indians was less than those given to inmates of the Buchenwald Concentration camp?

7. Are you saying that actions like those which happened at Amritsar Massacre are very different from those committed by the Nazis?

8. Or this little gem - " Not one of the marchers even raised an arm to fend off the blows. They went down like ten-pins. From where I stood I heard the sickening whacks of the clubs on unprotected skulls. The waiting crowd of watchers groaned and sucked in their breaths in sympathetic pain at every blow. Those struck down fell sprawling, unconscious or writhing in pain with fractured skulls or broken shoulders. In two or three minutes the ground was quilted with bodies. Great patches of blood widened on their white clothes. The survivors without breaking ranks silently and doggedly marched on until struck down....

There were not enough stretcher-bearers to carry off the wounded; I saw eighteen injured being carried off simultaneously, while forty-two still lay bleeding on the ground awaiting stretcher-bearers. The blankets used as stretchers were sodden with blood....At times the spectacle of unresisting men being methodically bashed into a bloody pulp sickened me so much I had to turn away.

In response, Lord Irwin, Viceroy of India, wrote to King George:

Your Majesty can hardly fail to have read with amusement the accounts of the severe battles for the Salt Depot in Dharasana. The police for a long time tried to refrain from action. After a time this became impossible, and they had to resort to sterner methods. A good many people suffered minor injuries in consequence."

Atleast to us Indians, the actions of the British were no different from those of the Nazis. And I am not the only one saying that, you can do a google search. If a majority of Indians do believe it, then according to Wikipedia policy - shouldn't this be reflected too? DemolitionMan (talk) 16:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by official agencies?

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Buchenwald/Liberation2.html Says that “General Patton wrote that the Buchenwald prisoners were being fed 800 calories per day” Or half that given to Indians in the British aid camps.

Or this http://newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2007/0411/Front_page/075.html

"It was 500 to 600 calories if it was that," he said. "On this you survived." Though it’s hard to tell if this is the whole day or one meal.

Or this http://www.geocities.com/hstaruk3/buchenwsub.html

“Gradual increase was the standard. Especially in the last days under the Nazis, prisoners received a mere 500 to 700 calories each day”

Certainly the prisoners went on to receive greater rations then this, but only after liberation. Now you provide a source that actually lists what the calorie intake was under the nazis, not just someone saying it was more then a figure that (rather interestingly) do not provide.

Slavery in India http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/India.htm http://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India3.htm How about a book on the subject itself? Lal, K. S. Muslim Slave System in Medieval India (1994) ISBN 81-85689-67-9

Hitler also admired the hindus.

We are not sayg that the British did not caarry out viooanet acts, but what we are denyiing is that the British engadged in a deliberate and systamatic attempt to exterminate the Indian people, that was Hitlers crime to try and extrmainte a whole race of people. Provide a source that says that a majority of Indians say this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Here it is http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/01rajeev.htm

Average calorie intake of Buchenwald prisoners - 1750; "aid" in famine-ridden Madras province - 1627

Subjugating an entire nation is not the same as exterminating a race. Since a majority of the Indians belonged to the same race as the Britishers - this was not race based discrimination as much as it was a discrimination based on national origin - kinda like Hitler did to the French or the Danes or the Poles. And last I checked there was a difference between slavery and human trafficking. DemolitionMan (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:What you have posted there are a few isolated articles which purposfully go against what are the accepted facts.
THREE SOURCES FROM THREE DIFFERENT AUTHORS = ISOLATED ARTICLES.
ONE BBC COMMENTATOR OF 21ST CENTURY CALLED SAUL DAVID (with a single book as the only proof of his knowledge of Indian history) = CREDIBLE PRIMARY SOURCE TO EDIT THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.
UH...OH! DONT CALL ME BRITISH, THAT IS RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.
clap clap clap. Wikipedia style NPOV. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

But what do I know? I am just a Hindu nationalist. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And I am not the only one saying so - there are tons of sources

http://mondediplo.com/2005/05/02empire

"320,000 Kikuyu held in concentration camps, the 1,090 hangings, the terrorisation of villages, electric shocks, beatings and mass rape documented in Caroline Elkins’s book Britain’s Gulag - and well over 100,000 deaths. This was a time when British soldiers were paid five shillings (equal to $9 in today’s money) for each Kikuyu male they killed, when they nailed the limbs of African guerrillas to crossroads posts. And when they were photographed holding severed heads of Malayan communist “terrorists” in another war that cost over 10,000 lives." - As late as the 1950s

"In late 19th-century and early 20th-century India up to 30 million died in famines, as British administrators insisted on the export of grain (as they had done during the Irish famine of the 1840s) and courts ordered 80,000 floggings a year. Four million died in the avoidable Bengal famine of 1943 - there have been no such famines since independence."

"What is now Bangladesh was one of the richest parts of the world before the British arrived and deliberately destroyed its cotton industry. When India’s Andaman islands were devastated by December’s tsunami, who recalled that 80,000 political prisoners had been held in camps there in the early 20th-century, routinely experimented on by British army doctors? Perhaps it’s not surprising that Hitler was an enthusiast, describing the British empire as an “inestimable factor of value”, even if it had been acquired with “force and often brutality""

In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of famines that killed between 12 million and 29 million Indians. These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy. When an El Nino drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the Viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at the height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 320,000 tonnes of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, officials were ordered "to discourage relief works in every possible way." The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited "at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices." The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. In the labour camps, the workers were given less food than inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94 per cent.

That does sound very very Nazi like to me.

As millions died, the imperial government launched "a militarised campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought." The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived, was used by Lord Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places that had produced a crop surplus, the government's export policies, such as Stalin's in Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the north-western provinces, Oud, and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceding three years, at least 1.25 million died.

Despite pleas from the secretary of state for India Leo Amery during the terrible 1943-44 Bengal famine, Churchill refused to divert scarce shipping to Calcutta. He thought that "the starvation of anyway underfed Bengalis" was less serious than that of sturdy Greeks, particularly as Indians would go on breeding "like rabbits".

Churchill - the British war hero! Wasn't this dude voted the greatest Brit of all time?

"India must be bled, the bleeding should be done judiciously." How nice. This statement is what differentiates the Brits from the Nazis. The Brits did not want to kill the goose which laid the golden egg - they just wanted to get as much out of it as possible.

But then again - since I am a right wing Hindu lunatic, I am just making all this up. After all, what can a native possibly know? DemolitionMan (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Kikuyu, what part of India were they from, I can’t seem to find any reference to the State you speak of. One article (rather less then three) has been provided that says that the Buchenwald inmates got 1500 caleries a day, and you say I go against the accepted facts. 3 articles by different users + three sources (I shall provide three more). Saul David does not work soley at the BBC, and he is an aknowledged historian. What do you mean by cedible primery sources (which by the way is not a prefered source on wikipedia, they say secondry sources are better) and to what do you refer? Who called you British?

According to Cimoszko the prisoners were fed about 600 calories worth of food per day. This consisted of three pieces of bread, a piece of margarine, and a cup of coffee at breakfast, another cup of coffee at midday, and some watery soup for dinner. Ohh those lying survivors, why can’t they tell the truth. http://archives.heritage.com/bv/20031002/V07ISAR.htm

which I have seen with my own eyes in the concentration camp at Buchenwald. ... from 500 to 700 calories a day as against 2500 to 3600 calories required Public Health Experiences in the European Theatre of Operations Warren F. Draper Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 90, No. 4

More American lies. The prisoners' daily rations, 600 calories each when the Americans arrived, was raised immediately to 1,200 and within two weeks to 2,400 calories. (interestingly this come out at an average of 1400 calories a day). ARMY HISTORICAL SERIES THE U.S. ARMY IN THE OCCUPATION OF GERMANY1944-1946 by Earl F. Ziemk epage 252

Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Volume E-8, Documents on South Asia, 1973-1976 (us state department) In this sense India in the past year has experienced food shortages which have led to famine-like conditions, including price rises Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Volume E-8, Documents on South Asia, 1973-1976 India seeks considerable material (principally financial) assistance to foster economic development. On occasion it needs additional large amounts of food aid to prevent famine. Two consecutive monsoon failures, as occurred in 1966-1967, can bring on a near disaster, with the threat of severe famine which can be averted only by heavy imports. (In 1967 alone, India received 8 million tons of US PL-480 food grains.) No wonder India claims there are no famine, it receives vast amounts of US aid to stave them off, so the conditions still occur, it’s just that there is a better aid distribution system. No one claims that the British commited no terrible crimes, but it was not a planed and dillibertes policy of genocide to wipe out a whole race. Callous yes incompetant yes, greedy yes, but not diliberate racial extermination.[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]]

I can give you a lot more sources

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=903

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/History/British/jolly_good.html

http://www.hindu.com/2005/12/28/stories/2005122804961100.htm

http://www.doublestandards.org/ukempire.html

1. The administration in India averted famine by getting aid from the US. And as stated clearly, it was a "near-famine"; not a famine. The population of India has already exploded by then thanks to mass poverty. However, during British times - despite enough food available in India, it was shipped overseas to the UK. And charity was banned as it would affect grain prices. To top it, back taxes were collected. People seeking aid were turned down if there were incapable of hard labor. Churchill preferred to ship food to Greeks since the Bengalis "bred like rabbits".

2. The growth of India's economy for 200 years was 0% - UK's was 347%. 0% growth for 200 years!!

3. It was a deliberate policy to subjugate and exploit a nation. If there were exterminated, who would be left to exploit? In many ways, this was worse than the Nazis - at least death must have brought an end to the misery. In British India it was a cycle of misery, exploitation and starvation.

The lieutenant-governor of Bengal, Sir Richard Temple, was sent south as plenipotentiary Famine Delegate by Lytton to clamp down on the "out of control" expenditures that threatened the financing of the planned invasion of Afghanistan. … In a lightning tour of the famished countryside of the eastern Deccan, Temple purged a half million people from relief work and forced Madras to follow Bombay's precedent of requiring starving applicants to travel to dormitory camps outside their locality for coolie labor on railroad and canal projects. … In a self-proclaimed Benthamite "experiment" that eerily prefigured later Nazi research on minimal human subsistence diets in concentration camps, Temple cut rations for male coolies, whom he compared to "a school full of refractory children," down to one pound of rice per diem despite medical testimony that the ryots – once "strapping fine fellows" – were now "little more than animated skeletons ... utterly unfit for any work." … The "Temple wage," as it became known, provided less sustenance for hard labor than the diet inside the infamous Buchenwald concentration camp and less than half of the modern caloric standard recommended for adult males by the Indian government.

http://www.bartleby.com/268/6/6.html Several Indians are deeply concerned about why literacy rates in India are still so low. So in the last year, I have been making a point of asking English-speaking Indians to guess what India's literacy rate in the colonial period might have been. These were Indians who went to school in the sixties and seventies (only two decades after independence) and I was amazed to hear their fairly confident guesses. Most guessed the number to be between 30% and 40%. When I suggested that their guess was on the high side – they offered 25% to 35%. No one was prepared to believe that literacy in British India in 1911 was only 6%, in 1931 it was 8%, and by 1947 it had crawled to 11%! That fifty years of freedom had allowed the nation to quintuple it's literacy rate was something that almost seemed unfathomable to them. Perhaps the British had concentrated on higher education ….? But in 1935, only 4 in 10,000 were enrolled in universities or higher educational institutes. In a nation of then over 350 million people only 16,000 books (no circulation figures) were published in that year (i.e. 1 per 20,000).

R.Nath in his History of Decorative Art in Mughal Architecture records that scores of gardens, tombs and palaces that once adorned the suburbs of Sikandra at Agra were sold out or auctioned.

Relics of the glorious age of the Mughals were either destroyed or converted beyond recognition… Out of 270 beautiful monuments which existed at Agra alone, before its capture by Lake in 1803, hardly 40 have survived.

In the same vein, David Carroll (in Taj Mahal) observes:

The forts in Agra and Delhi were commandeered at the beginning of the nineteenth century and turned into military garrisons. Marble reliefs were torn down, gardens were trampled, and lines of ugly barracks, still standing today, were installed in their stead. In the Delhi fort, the Hall of Public Audience was made into an arsenal and the arches of the outer colonnades were bricked over or replaced with rectangular wooden windows.

http://www.doublestandards.org/project1.html

The Nazis wrecked havoc for 5 years; the British for 200. The Nazis wanted to be like the British; however they just could not match the sheer scale of atrocities the British committed. I am sure that if the Nazis had been around for 200 years, given their propensity for extermination, they would have probably killed a lot more. However, I doubt they could have matched the scale of exploitation that the British managed to achieve. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What you've said there is getting at the crux of the point though you've got it all wrong.
The British Empire was around for hundreds of years. The Nazis were in power for 12. Even despite Britain having far, far longer to do nasty deads the Nazis still managed to cram more evil into the last few years of their time then virtually the entirity of British history could come up with.

A lot of your comparisons here are quite unfair. You're really bending facts to suit your purpose. You can't compare the 19th century or even the early 20th to the late 20th century so absolutely. Fairer comparisons would be comparing India to its contemporaries at the time, how does India at various points in time compare to China? That is a far fairer comparison then modern India vs. past India. Doing that you'll find most nations are better today.

And I really don't know where you got the idea of India shipping all its food to Britain came from. That is utter rubbish, it just wouldn't have made economical sense. Most of Britain's food came from the Americas- the US, Canada and Argentina.
0% GDP growth likewise is just a lie. Figures I have show India's GDP clearly does grow overall.--Josquius (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That is entirely your personal opinion. The fact that British greed was responsible for the death of 4-5 million people due to starvation in Bengal alone speaks otherwise. Indians will always feel that the British were as bad as and sometimes worse than the Nazis. The Jews or Israelis might disagree - and they have every right to but as far as Indians are concerned, there can be no doubt that the difference between the Nazis and the British Empire was negligible.

I am not bending facts. Facts remain facts, you can bend a theory, not a fact.

Are you suggesting Indian food was not shipped to the UK during their wars? Or that the farmers were not forced to grow crops to feed the industrial revolution? This is as late as the 1920's and is from Wiki itself

"Estate of Bettiah and Ramnagar gave leased land to them on easy terms for cultivation of indigo. The arrangements made for the cultivation of indigo were (1) Zirat and (2)Tenkuthiya. Apparently, nothing went wrong by the introduction of systems. But actually, the peasants suffered a lot due to both systems. The wages paid to laborers were extremely low and entirely inadequate. They were forced to labor hard and were severely punished for alleged slackness on their part. Sri Raj Kumar Shukla, an indigo cultivator of the district, having heard about the Noncooperation movement had met Mohandas K. Gandhi and appraised him about the miserable plight of indigo cultivators in the Champaran district. He persuaded him to visit the district. At almost the same time the Indian National Congress in December 1916 passed at Lucknow a resolution requesting the Government to appoint a committce of both officials and non-officials to inquire into the agrarian trouble facing the district. "

But then what would a right wing Hindu know? The British empire was the epitome of goodness according to you. You are not refuting a single fact of mine - you are merely saying it is not true. Back it up with some sources.

Didn't churchill say that feeding Greeks was more important than Bengalis since Bengalis breed like rabbits? Didn't the British try to collect back taxes from famine areas? Didn't the Brits make them do hard labor on negligible amount of ration?

I would like to see your sources about the growth of India's economy during British rule? Is this too like your "internationally accepted law" or do you this time have some sources to back your statements? DemolitionMan (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No. You are the one with personal oppinion here. I'm not trying to get things changed on wikipedia to say the British Empire was the best thing ever to happen to the world. I prefer facts.
You however are pushing your original research (if it can be called research) that it was worse then the nazis.
And who made you the speaker for all the Indian people? The majority of Indians I've met have a fairly sane view of history, they view the empire the way it was; a part of the real world, full of shades of grey, it had good parts and bad. Things weren't the big black and white picture you want to depict.

You're strawmanning again. Of course some food was shipped from India to the UK. This is a long way from what you say happened though- that the starving Indians had all their food took from them so it could be sent to Britain. The majority of Britain's food came from the Americas. Rice isn't even very popular in Europe today let alone 100 years ago, the main European imports from India were tea and the like.

No, the British empire was not the epitome of goodness, I've never said that. What I will say however is that the United Kingdom was the 'good guy' of the 19th century; again I must point out that this was the 19th century, not the current day. And you have come up with nothing remotely resembling facts to prove the ridiculous statement that the British Empire were worse then the Nazis.

I have no idea if Churchill said that. It wouldn't suprise me if he did, he was quite a dinosaur. Don't see what that has to do with anything though.
It would seem logical.
Who is 'them'? I will assume you are referring to criminals in which case I will answer yes.

Internationally accepted law? What the hell are you talking about? I can't see what this nonsence phrase has to do with GDP. What I'm going off here is once again those wonderful things called facts. Facts are quite brilliant really, they flow through all periods of history completely ignoring any nationalist sentiments that certain people in the current day may hold. Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 is a rather good book on the subject which is where I get most of my figures for that sort of thing from.

Can you stop this sillyness now please? I know you'll whinge and claim your kicking my arse at internet arguing and other crap but its quite clearly stated on this site that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DISCUSSION BOARD. We've long since gone way off the point of this discussion.--Josquius (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Give me some links to back up your claim about the growth of Indian economy during the British rule. I've already posted mine which state that it was negligible. And this argument is at the crux of this article. Your claim of the British being the "good guys" of the 19th century is downright ridiculous. The Indian line of thought is entirely different. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No. My source is Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992; a far more reliable source then a web site. I really don't want to spend time trawling around the internet to find something that says the same thing. If you want to learn some reliable facts you should go down to your local library. Besides facts saying different though simple logic also does, for a nation's economy to not change over a century or two of history is incredibly unlikely- especially when that century or two covers such recent times. If you really want to search online though you could try starting here (no guarantee, just where I was when I got bored).
Yes,the standard Indian line of thought is probally differnet to mine, it is also totally different to yours also on these matters though.--Josquius (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indigo is not food, it’s a dye.

As a result of these favourable developments, industrial production in India grew at an average rate of 8.4 percent from 1861 to 1900. …

…After India achieved independence in 1947, it chose to adopt economic policies that proved to be highly inefficient and failed to deliver robust economic growth:…

…As a result of these inefficiencies, the economy grew at less than 3 percent per year during the 1960s and 1970s. With the population increasing at 2 percent annually, there was little growth in individual income….

A Very Short History of the Indian Economy, The Aspen institute

[[Slatersteven (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]]

And I really don't know where you got the idea of India shipping all its food to Britain came from. That is utter rubbish, it just wouldn't have made economical sense
&
Of course some food was shipped from India to the UK.
GOOD MORNING. Demolitionman just give up. The whole argument is about ONE-UP-MAN-SHIP. Hindu Nationalists also take coachings in Ireland probably. (The style is typically British than Irish though). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the growth of the economy. "An estimate by Cambridge University historian Angus Maddison reveals that India's share of the world income fell from 22.6% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952" —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemolitionMan (talk • contribs) 15:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You really can't look at India in isolation for that one. The world changed a lot in 300 years, being a rich nation no longer depended so much on having a lot of people and a lot of fields. Those numbers are far more down to other places (particularly Europe, Russia and the Americas) growing faster than India rather then India actually shrinking.--Josquius (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I can look at India in isolation if I so choose. Countries like Japan which were ruled by the Japanese, even if they had a late start were able to match the Europeans. India couldn't simply because it was being exploited by the British. People were being forced to grow stuff to feed the industrial revolution of the UK. And I forgot to add, if this is not a discussion forum (as you rightly pointed out), then why discuss? Just give out facts, not your personal opinions. I am yet to see a credible source for your vivid claims. DemolitionMan (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So its lowest point was after independance? Moreover 3.8% is not zero percent, so please give out facts, not opionion.[[Slatersteven (talk)]] —Preceding comment was added at 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The book I mentioned is perfectly credible. Its used as a text book in several universities.
Choosing to do that is quite ignorant.--Josquius (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Steven - Share of world income is a completely different ball game from growth of GDP. Do you understand the difference or do I have to explain that to you as well? Jos - Which universities use it and for which courses? DemolitionMan (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why was the figure given in a sentance about (and I quote you) "I am talking about the growth of the economy. "An estimate by Cambridge University historian Angus Maddison reveals that India's share of the world income fell from 22.6% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952"."?[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Groningen does for history of the world economy for a start. Just go look the book up for yourself, you'll see its credentials are sound.--Josquius (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Steven - Share of world income = % distribution of total income of the world. Growth of economy = The rate at which the economy of the country grew. Totally different stats. Both reveal the same thing - the bloodsucking of the Indian massses by the British.

Jos - you just said that this is used as a textbook in many universities. I asked which ones? Surely, you can back your wild claims with facts for a change. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Read. Groningen. I'm not going to go and find out which other ones as that would serve no point. I fail to see quite what you're arguing here. --J 11:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josquius (talk • contribs)

Then why did you use it to prove a lack of Indian economic growth, you raised the figures not me. [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Steven, I raised the figures to prove the same point. The lack of Indian economic growth (0%) during British rule saw their share in world income fall from 22% before British rule to 3.8% just after independence.

Jos, what exactly does this book say? Give the figures - not what you think this book reveals. The credentials of the book are reasonably sound - but what does it contain?

This is what Prof. Madddison has to say, "British salaries were high: the Viceroy received £25,000 a year, and governors £10,000…From 1757 to 1919, India also had to meet administrative expenses in London, first of the East India Company, and then of the India Office, as well as other minor but irritatingly extraneous charges. The cost of British staff was raised by long home leave in the UK, early retirement and lavish amenities in the form of subsidized housing, utilities, rest houses, etc."

"Even in 1936, more than half of government spending was for the military, justice, police and jails, and less than 3 per cent for agriculture"

The following excerpt from Prof Maddison’s essay squarely debunks the notion that the British did a lot for education and were conscious of the wealth of ancient knowledge – some of which was still extant at the time. The contempt that Macaulay felt towards the knowledge and wisdom of ancient Hindus is evident from this quote:

” We are a Board for wasting public money, for printing books which are less value than the paper on which they are printed was while it was blank; for giving artificial encouragement to absurd history, absurd metaphysics, absurd physics, absurd theology ... I have no knowledge of either Sanskrit or Arabic ... But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value ... Who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia ... all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanskrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgements used at preparatory schools in England. (pg 5)”

Unsurprisingly, “(pg 6) The education system which developed was a very pale reflection of that in the UK. Three universities were set up in 1857 in Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, but they were merely examining bodies and did no teaching. Drop-out ratios were always very high. They did little to promote analytic capacity or independent thinking and produced a group of graduates with a half-baked knowledge of English, but sufficiently Westernized to be alienated from their own culture.

“…the great mass of the population had no access to education and, at independence in 1947, 88 per cent were illiterate… at independence only a fifth of children were receiving any primary schooling.”

Education was used as a tool “…to turn a tiny elite into imitation Englishmen and a somewhat bigger group into government clerks.”

If we turn our eyes to other areas of development, the picture does not improve.

In spite of agriculture being - by far - the most significant part of the economy, “Little was done to promote agricultural technology. There was some improvement in seeds, but no extension service, no improvement in livestock and no official encouragement to use fertilizer. Lord Mayo, the Governor General, said in 1870, “I do not know what is precisely meant by ammoniac manure. If it means guano, superphosphate or any other artificial product of that kind, we might as well ask the people of India to manure their ground with champagne” (Pg 11).

“Another important effect of foreign rule on the long-run growth potential of the economy was the fact that a large part of its potential savings were siphoned abroad.

This 'drain' of funds from India to the UK has been a point of major controversy between Indian nationalist historians and defenders of the British raj. However, the only real grounds for controversy are statistical. There can be no denial that there was a substantial outflow which lasted for 190 years. If these funds had been invested in India they could have made a significant contribution to raising income levels. (Pg 20)”

The total ‘drain’ due to government pensions and leave payments, interest on nonrailway official debt, private remittances for education and savings, and a third commercial profits amounted to about 1.5 per cent of national income of undivided India from 1921 to 1938 and was probably a little larger before that… about a quarter of Indian savings were transferred out of the economy, and foreign exchange was lost which could have paid for imports of capital goods.

So that takes care of Professor Maddison. Should now move onto another university - how are professors from Harvard? The book in question - “India’s Deindustrialization in the 18th and 19th Centuries” by David Clingingsmith, Jeffrey G. Williamson, Harvard University, August 2005

Now, what does this one say?

"between 1772 and 1815 there was a huge net financial transfer from India to Britain in the form of Indian goods. The “drain resulting from contact with the West was the excess of exports from India for which there was no equivalent import” included “a bewildering variety of cotton goods for re-export or domestic [consumption], and the superior grade of saltpeter that gave British cannon an edge”

Javier Cuenca Esteban estimates these net financial transfers from India to Britain reached a peak of £1,014,000 annually in 1784-1792 before declining to £477,000 in 1808-1815 (Pg 9 )"

Until 1898 India, like most Asian countries, was on the silver standard. In 1898, India under British rule, had to adopt a gold exchange standard which tied the Rupee to Pound at a fixed value of 15 to 1, thus forcing India to export more for smaller amount of British goods. This was another kind of exploitation of the Indian people making them poorer and poorer.

India did not reduce its foreign debt during the First World War as many other

developing countries did. Instead, there were two ‘voluntary’ war gifts to the UK amounting to £150 million ($730 million). India also contributed one-and-a-quarter million troops, which were financed from the Indian budget. The 'drain' of funds to England continued in the interwar years because of home charges and profit remittances.

There was also a small outflow of British capital. In the depression of 1929-33, many developing countries defaulted on foreign debt or froze dividend transfers, but this was not possible for India. The currency was kept at par with sterling and devalued in 1931, but the decisions were based on British rather than Indian needs. Furthermore, the salaries of civil servants remained at high level, and the burden of official transfers increased in a period of falling prices.

During the Second World War, India's international financial position was transformed.

Indian war finance was much more inflationary than in the UK and prices rose threefold, so these local costs of troop support were extremely high in terms of Pound, as the exchange rate remained unchanged.

As I stated, considering the Nazis exploited Europe for half a decade and the British did it for 200 years in India; the comparisons between the Nazis and the British Raj are completely justified.DemolitionMan (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian GDP in 1850: 125,681 , in 1870: 134,882 , in 1890: 163,341 , in 1910: 210,439, in 1930: 277,467 (figures in millions of course). Quite a steady pattern of increase there. Of course there are some years where there are slight drops but these drops are usually echoed across the world at similar times and they are made up for afterwards. Before this time the figures are far more rough but in 1700: 90,750 , in 1600: 74,250. The facts show no big pattern of decrease in the Indian economy under British rule or otherwise.
And you're really missing the point of the Nazis if you compare stuff to them purely on the basis of 'exploitation'.--Him and a dog 12:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the gross GDP - it should be calculated per capita. Why don't you give me those figures? And of course, the barbaric nature of the British Raj was not altogether different from that of the Nazi Rule. Both revolved around a policy of exploitation, forced labor, loot and pillage. DemolitionMan (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats not what you said though. You insisted Britain had literally made India itself poorer. You can't change your argument so suddenly when the facts prove you wrong. BUT: I will give those figures anyway even though they're far more unreliabel then the GDP ones (there wasn't a regular census after all): 1870: 533, 1884: 551, 1900: 599, and before you say I'm selectively chosing numbers there 1884 is actually the lowest number around its time, '88 is 576. 1900 too is a bit lower then surrounding years. 1910: 697, 1929: 728. Again its fairly constant overall. The 500ish figure had been in place since the 1500s.
You are showing a surprising ignorance of history with these constant nazi comparisons. I think this may be my last reply here as this is pointless, wikipedia is not a forum, none of your original research is going to be put into the article and this is in general irrelevant to what the point of this page is supposed to be.--Him and a dog 14:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still insisting India got progressively poorer as a direct result of British rule. Where are you getting your figures from? What's the source? And no one is asking you to continue discussions, you are free to leave. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This has become unwieldy and difficult to follow. It is meandering over all kinds of issues, and had difrted so far of topic as to have very little relevance to either the page, or the originol point raised. Perhaps it should now not only be laid to rest but archived.[[Slatersteven (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]]

All this talk about India's economic development (or lack thereof) under British rule is irrelevant to a discussion about the Indian Mutiny, however,I'd like to make a few points:

1. The "colonial drain" has recently been calculated to be around 0.5-1% of India's national income, which hardly qualifies as a drain. And, of course, a large proportion of that low percentage was in fact a legitimate factor payments India incurred for services she needed but couldn't provide. I suspect this will be dismissed as "British propaganda" (which translates as "I can't refute your statements so I'll just discredit your sources), so I went to the bother of finding an Indian historian as a source. The Source is "Rethinking Economic Change in India" by Tirthankar Roy.
2. Whether India "grew" or not is debatable. Tirthankar Roy, for example, is of the opinion that India DID grow in the nineteenth century. From 1868-98 the NDP grew at 0.99% per annum, per capita NDP at 0.59%, from 1898-1914 NDP grew by 1.85% per annum, per capita NDP at 1.24%. The rest of colonial rule did not provide significant growth: NDP grew at 0.61% per annum and per capita NDP actually shrank by 0.57%. My source is, again, Roy's "Rethinking Economic Change in India". Deepak Lal, is on the whole more positive about the growth of India under colonial rule, see this article by him: http://in.rediff.com/money/2005/aug/30guest.htm
3. Even if India stagnated in the nineteenth century, this does not mean that nothing happened in nineteenth century India:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d13_D5e1rSoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=BR+Tomlinson&sig=P2J001IKV7aO3JkgCTw9_C_vawE#PPA9,M1

1. All this talk of "British=Nazis" is frankly outrageous, especially as it stereotypes a whole people. Did not the Indian's commit a genocide of the Sikhs in the 1970's? Are Indians Nazis? British colonial officers may have viewed famine as being a lesser evil than poverty (the often claimed that to prevent famine would impoverish India), however over the long term technology transfers to India did alleviate famines. See Michelle Burge McAlpin's "Subject to Famine". There is also no truth to the allegation that growing cash crops made India vulnerable to famines. See Neil Charlesworth's "Peasants and Imperial Rule". At no point did the British engineer famines to eradicate the population of India.

For the record, as I suspect that my nationality will be called into question, I am British, however it did not affect my conclusions. I am not particularly proud to be British, however nor am I ashamed to be British. It says I am on my passport and that is the end of it. If DM wishes to have a debate (and try not to win by shouting) then please don't accuse people of being biased because of their nationality.Led125 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Indian atoricities are not "alleged", they happened. Nobody has ever questioned them before DM, and no one seriously questions whether they happened. Also the Mau Mau Rebellion is not revelvant to this discussion (for the record Elkins's account has several problems which I won't go into here unless requested because of its irrelevancy to the current topic). Both Indian and British atrocities must be mentioned, given that this war was probably the most savage of all colonial wars waged in British history. Nor should we say that "India was a colonial, so its atrocities are excusable". It was Gandhi himself who said that Indian independence must not disgrace itself using violence. Led125 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It is funny that the only sources for Indian "atrocities" are British. Nobody is doubting that the British allege such atrocities. However, it must be repeatedly pointed out that alleged Indian atrocities are not only not documented, but not even part of local folklore. Compare this to the atrocities propogated through Indian history at various points by Asoka, Mughals, Marathas etc. - all these are documented.

I would have no qualms about associating the likes of Narendra Modi who oversaw a pogrom in Gujurat against Muslim citizens of India to the Nazis. Nor am I saying all British are Nazis. Even in Germany, not all Germans were Nazis. However, when a government knowingly treats its citizens as second class citizens or even third class citizens, puts up signs like "Dogs and Indians not allowed" in India, when the House of Lords praises a General Dyer for killing unarmed civilians including women and children in Amritsar, I have every right to equate the British Raj to the Nazi regime. The forced starvation of 5 million Bengalis in 1943 is a case in point. Read the works of Amartya Sen. It is sad to see Brits coming here waving the union jack to get over the diminishing status of their country. Well, too bad. Facts can't be altered. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay:

1. The Bengal famine did not claim 5 million lives, it claimed 2.1 million lives. My source is T. Dyson and A. Maharatna 'Excess mortality during the Great Bengal Famine: A Re-evaluation' in, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol 28, No. 3, 1991.
2. Whilst you are correct in that the British saw themselves as racial superior to the natives these views were pretty common circa this time. Gandhi himself saw Indians superior to Native Africans. Was Gandhi a Nazi? You are, however, overestimating the importance of race. I would recommend David Cannadine's "Ornamentalism: How the British Saw their Empire", it was class, rather than race, which most Britons saw as being important in the running of the empire.
3. Whilst the House of Lords did praise Dyer it is important to note that the House of Commons condemned him. The House of Commons is more important than the House of Lords.
4. Whilst you have the "right" to equate the British Raj to the Nazis such a comparison is insulting to the victims of the Nazi genocide. I notice that on famines you didn't consider Michelle Burge McAlpin's work, or indeed the work by British district officers in implementing things they thought were absolutely necessary for famine prevention.
5. I am a bit confused by you calling the Bengal famine "forced starvation", are you arguing that the British deliberately created the famine in order to murder the Bengali people? If this is the case how do you explain the fact that by the end of 1943 the London Government agreed to export one million tons of wheat into Bengal? Or that Mountbatten diverted 10 per cent of his shipping for the purposes of famine relief? Or that 2 million Indians were on famine relief at the height of the famine?
6. I have read the works of Amartya Sen, which is why I am aware of those who take issue with him.
7. I am British, but I am hardly "waving the union jack" here. I am trying to present the facts which you seem reluctant to accept.Led125 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian attrocities are documented. Actualy the sources are not only British, there are plenty of non-british accounts of the mutiny that refer to the killing of British cilians by mutineers. As to General Dyer, Lord William Hunter Committee of Inquiry was set up to probe the violence. The report condemned Dyer, arguing that in "continuing firing as long as he did, it appears to us that General Dyer committed a grave error." prhaps a little muted, but hardley a rigning endorsment.lack of notice to disperse from the Bagh in the beginning was an error length of firing showed a grave error Dyer's motive of producing a sufficient moral effect was to be condemned lack of attention to the wounded was not acceptable He was met by Lieutenant-General Sir Havelock Hudson, who told him that he was deprived of his command. He was later told by the Commander-in-Chief in India, General Sir Charles Carmichael Monro, to resign his post and that he would not be reemployed. During the Dyer debates in the Parliament of the United Kindgom, the House of Commons censured his role and action in the Jallianwala Bagh. Mr Montagu, the Secretary of State in India, called it "a grave error in judgement." Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for War at the time of the debate in the British Parliament the House of Commons, called it "an episode without precedent or parallel in the modern history of British Empire…an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation." It's true that the house of lords supportd him, but it was not a matter of state policy to support him, as can be seen both parleminet, the secretary of state and his own comamnder did not. In the case of the Bangali The Bengal government, which at the time had been mostly Indianized reacted to the crisis lazily and incompetently, refusing to stop the export of food from Bengal. The people of Calcutta were also, by and large, indifferent to the fate of people starving. The commercial artist Satyajit Ray admitted he felt "a little callous" about the famine. In contrast to the incompetence of the civil service the British military commanders and the British military in general, performed as best as it could to combat the famine providing food to the suffering and organising relief. During the course of the famine the government organised roughly 110,000,000 (odd thing to do if you wre trying to deliberatly starve people) free meals which proved pathetically too small to cope with the disaster. In contrast to the incompetence of the civil service the British military commanders and the British military in general, performed as best as it could to combat the famine[8], providing food to the suffering and organising relief. During the course of the famine the government organised roughly 110,000,000 free meals which proved pathetically too small to cope with the disaster. The famine ended when the government in London agreed to import 1,000,000 tons of grain to Bengal, reducing food prices(again odd if you want people to die, and not at all like the nazis). Certailt the British response was weak and disorganise, but you have not provided one shred of evidance to support the claim it wa deliberate. I say again, the Nazis deliberatly killed millions in a planes and systamatic program of genocide over the course of three years, did the British do this in India?[[Slatersteven (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Are you suggesting that General Dyer opened fire on women and children in Amritsar by mistake? Of course it was deliberate, but it is okay if you don't think so. To each his own.

1. The British authorities enacted the so-called "Boat-Denial Scheme" leading to confiscation of all boats and ships in the Gulf of Bengal which could carry more than 10 persons. This resulted in not less than 66,500 confiscated boats. Consequently, the inland navigation system collapsed completely. Fishing became practically impossible, and many rice and jute farmers could not ship their goods anymore. Subsequently the economy collapsed completely, especially in the lower Ganges-Delta.

1. The confiscations of land in connection with military fortifications and constructions (airplane landing places, military and refugee camps) led to the expulsion of about 150,000 to 180,000 people from their land, turning them practically into homeless persons.

1. Food deliveries from other parts of the country to Bengal were refused by the government in order to make food artificially scarce. This was an especially cruel policy introduced in 1942 under the title "Rice Denial Scheme." The purpose of it was, as mentioned earlier, to deny an efficient food supply to the Japanese after a possible invasion. Simultaneously, the government authorized free merchants to purchase rice at any price and to sell it to the government for delivery into governmental food storage. So, on one hand government was buying every grain of rice that was around and on the other hand, it was blocking grain from coming into Bengal from other regions of the country.

1. Even though British law in India provided that emergency laws were to be applied in case of famines, the famine in Bengal was never officially recognized as such; an emergency was not declared, and therefore no drastic counter measures were taken for its amelioration. It was not until October of 1943 that the British government took notice of the emergency situation, but it still refused to introduce any supportive measures that would have been necessary.

1. Even though India imported about 1.8 million tons of cereals before the war, Britain made sure that India had an export surplus of rice at record levels in the tax year 1942/43.

1. The bad situation in Bengal was discussed in the British Parliament during a meeting at which only 10% of all members participated. Repeated requests for food imports to India (400 Million people) led to the delivery of approximately half a million tons of cereal in the years 1943 and 1944. In contrast to this was the net import to Great Britain (50 Million people) of 10 million tons in the second half of the year 1943 alone. Churchill repeatedly denied all food exports to India, in spite of the fact that about 2.4 million Indians served in British units during the Second World War.

I guess according to you, none of these were deliberately done. I think putting someone in a gas chamber is far more humane than starving him to death. But then, that's just me. Hence, I think the Nazis were Buddhist monks compared to the British. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Demolition Man, this is quoted from a Neo-Nazi magazineLed125 (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay:

1. The Bengal famine did not claim 5 million lives, it claimed 2.1 million lives. My source is T. Dyson and A. Maharatna 'Excess mortality during the Great Bengal Famine: A Re-evaluation' in, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol 28, No. 3, 1991.
2. Whilst you are correct in that the British saw themselves as racial superior to the natives these views were pretty common circa this time. Gandhi himself saw Indians superior to Native Africans. Was Gandhi a Nazi? You are, however, overestimating the importance of race. I would recommend David Cannadine's "Ornamentalism: How the British Saw their Empire", it was class, rather than race, which most Britons saw as being important in the running of the empire.
3. Whilst the House of Lords did praise Dyer it is important to note that the House of Commons condemned him. The House of Commons is more important than the House of Lords.
4. Whilst you have the "right" to equate the British Raj to the Nazis such a comparison is insulting to the victims of the Nazi genocide. I notice that on famines you didn't consider Michelle Burge McAlpin's work, or indeed the work by British district officers in implementing things they thought were absolutely necessary for famine prevention.
5. I am a bit confused by you calling the Bengal famine "forced starvation", are you arguing that the British deliberately created the famine in order to murder the Bengali people? If this is the case how do you explain the fact that by the end of 1943 the London Government agreed to export one million tons of wheat into Bengal? Or that Mountbatten diverted 10 per cent of his shipping for the purposes of famine relief? Or that 2 million Indians were on famine relief at the height of the famine?
6. I have read the works of Amartya Sen, which is why I am aware of those who take issue with him.
7. I am British, but I am hardly "waving the union jack" here. I am trying to present the facts which you seem reluctant to accept.Led125 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yur post on the Bengal famine of 1943 is a travesty of the truth. Firstly, the Boat Denial Scheme, rice denial schemes etc etc were not designed "to make rice artificially high", they were part of a fairly incompetent attempt to stop a Japanese invasion of India. Furthermore, the famine, although often deried as being "man made", was probably nature made. FAD was an important issue. I am aware that this runs contrary to the hypothesis proposed by Amartya Sen, which is why I did my research careful. My sources include Mark Tauger, "Entitlement, Shortage and the 1943 Bengal Famine: Another Look", The Journal of Peasant Studies; S.Y. Padmanabhan, "The Great Bengal Famine", Annual Review of Phytopathology; and O. Goswami 'The Bengal Famine of 1943: Re-examining the Data' in, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol 27, No. 4, 1990. Secondly, your recent analysis of the causes of the famine (which seems suspiciously similar to one I found in a Holocaust denial magazine) ignores one other causes of the famine: the fall of Burma, which led to a stoppage of rice imprts from Burma (which was the source of 40% of Bengal's rice acording to "An Economic History of India" by Dietmar Rothermund). The Bengal government was also Indianized to quite a significant degree, and Suhrawardy also refused to declare a famine in Bengal. Thirdly, The fact that food deliveries to Bengal were not approved is not suprising; in 1943 it seemed that Britain might well run out of food herself. In these circumstances it is not suprising that Churchill declined offers to send food to India (although he did request that the Americans accomodate the delivery of 50,000 tons of wheat to India from Australia) Fourthly, Bengal's food exports in 1943 were a tenth of what they were the year before. Fifthly, The Rice Denial scheme may well have mitigated the famine. My source is Peter Bowbrick's "A refutation of Sen's theory of famine", Food Policy. 11(2) 105-124. 1986. Finally, Bengal did receive some small donattions of food from other parts of India. Why would the British have allowed this if the desire was to wipe out the Bengali people? As you can see I have read the papers of not just some British economists and historians but many Indian ones. So please cut the "British propaganda" remarksLed125 (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Were the British deliberatly trying to kill the entire Indian race (or even a section of it)? [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)]]

As teh gerneral Dyer, I was not aware I had said HE did not act deliberatly, just that his actins were not orderd or sanctioned by either the Governemtns of the UK or British India. To be comparable to the Nazis his acts would have had to be a matter of state policy, not an individual act.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)]]

It was not sanctioned by the Government? So did they award him the death penalty for his terrorist act? Or did British newspapers hail him as the "Saviour of Punjab" and engaged in a fund collection drive for the this great man? DemolitionMan (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you research the difference between some newspapers and the British government.Led125 (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you answer the question - did the British Government put him in jail for killing pregnant women and children or did the British government let newspapers in the UK run fund raising drives for him. It's comparable to Osama Bin Laden roaming around freely in Pakistan and the Pakistani newspapers collecting funds for him. DemolitionMan (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No they didn't. I don't recall you asking me if they did. They forced him into earlier retirement and censured Dyer, if I recall correctly. However he was never sent to jail. However this does not mean that he was "supported" by the British government. The Sikhs in Punjab present Dyer with gifts as well. Does that mean that the Skihs sanctioned the massacre?Led125 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Did the British govenemtn reward him with high office, was he promoted? Did he reicve any officla thanks for his actions? was he nighted? In a democracy there is decent, that is the nature of the beast. As such we are allowed to support (or to condeme) actions that our government does (or deos nor) support. This does not imply official saction. It's true that the treatment of General Dyer was woefully weak and innefectual, but he was sactioned, he ws removed from his post, his carrer was ruined, as I have said befreo a weak response but not by any stretch of the imagination support[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

So that is the standard procedure in the UK for all Army personnel? "If you kill innocent women, children and civilians - you will not be punished but if there is a hue and cry it might adversely affect your chances of being knighted and you might not be thanked for killing the women and children"? As I said, there difference between the Nazis and the British is merely academic. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

He was removed from his position and sacked, not just refused honours, he was punsihed, not severly enough but still punished. The NAZIS rewarded those who killed women and children, they were promoted and given medels. They were order to do what they did, was Dyer?, As I have said before, in order to claim the Raj and the Nzis were the saem you have to prove that they acted in the self saem way, that they both had a planed organsized and deliberate plan of mass genocide to wip out (lets be generous to you) ONE race and that those who carried out those orders wre rewarded[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]