arnab wrote:johneeG wrote:Your feelings are matched by those of Churchill.
India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator.
Winston Churchill
You say:
a) There were many 'nations'.
b) alignment with the British was 'national interest'?!!
(a) & (b) seem self-contradictory. If there were many 'nations', how can aligning with British(and not someone else, like say Germany or France or Japan or XYZ) be national interest? Why the unique status to brits only?
Saar I don't say it - for e.g in the war of 1857 - the sikh princes did not join the war (supported the Brits). Neither did the kingdoms Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore etc. But I don't tarnish them as traitors and cowards today or berate them for not having a pan-India vision. I think at the time they did it in their 'national interest'.
No not a unique status to brits (but only in the context of those being called bootlickers). Tipu sultan did align with the French earlier - but I think Tipu is not really well received on BRF

1857?!!!
Noor Inayat Khan was captured in Oct 1943 and executed in Sept 1944. You had originally said:
at the time let us say the alignment with the british was guided by what passed for 'national' interest at the time (given that there were many 'nations' then)
But,
The Purna Swaraj declaration, or Declaration of the Independence of India was promulgated by the Indian National Congress on January 26, 1930, resolving the Congress and Indian nationalists to fight for Purna Swaraj, or complete self-rule independent of the British Empire. (Literally in Sanskrit, purna, "complete," swa, "self," raj, "rule," thus "complete self-rule")
The flag of India had been hoisted by Congress President Jawaharlal Nehru on December 31, 1929, on the banks of the Ravi river in Lahore, modern-day Pakistan. The Congress asked the people of India to observe January 26 as Independence Day. The flag of India was hoisted publicly across India by Congress volunteers, nationalists and the public.
even before that, we have Bal Gangadhar Tilak:
Tilak was one of the first and strongest advocates of "Swaraj" (self-rule) and a strong radical in Indian consciousness. His famous quote, "Swaraj is my birthright, and I shall have it!" is well-remembered in India even today.
Tilak died in August 1920.
Ram Prasad Bismil was hanged in Dec 1927 for his revolutionary activities against brits from 1918 to 1925.
Lala Lajpat Rai was beaten to death in Nov 1928 by the brits when he was protesting against one of their policies.
In Feb 1931, Chandra Shekhar Azad was encountered for his revolutionary activities against the brits.
In Mar, 1931, Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru were hanged for killing a brit officer named Saunders in 1928. At the time of hanging, they were about 23 yrs old. You originally brought alexander into the picture to emphasize on the age. Here, we have Indians who embraced the Martyrdom at the age of 23. Bhagat Singh fasted for 116 days.
Anyway the point is, by late 1920s, there was a clear acknowledgement of 'national cause' i.e. Independence from the brits. People were agitating against the brits in violent and non-violent manner.
Clearly, you are wrong when you say that there was no national cause or 'a single nation'
at the time. At least, in 1943-44 period(Noor Inayat Khan's activity period), there was acknowledgement of 'national causes' and of being a single nation among Indians(who were not 'bootlickers' of the brits).
So, to say that alignment with the brit cause is equal to national cause in 1943-1944 is a disingenuous argument. Yes, some Indians may have believed that allying with the brits in WWII was beneficial to India's cause.
But, there is nothing to show that Noor's involvement with the Brits was for the Indian national cause. On the contrary, she seems to have been primarily motivated by occupation of France by the Nazi Germany.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of those for whose cause she worked and died, to honour her. Why bring India into it? There are many people who were working for Indian national cause in that period and suffered as much(if not more). India needs to honour them.
---
The reality is one has to go by what one has done in given conditions. Based on this criteria, Noor Inayat Khan has shown an excellent bravery and loyalty for the cause of Brits. The Brits must be ashamed if they ignore or neglect her valiant efforts for the Brit cause. But, how can her efforts be called 'Indian cause'(especially when you claim that there was no single nation)?
Not a 'cause'. I admire her bravery as an Indian. Manekshaw won a military cross for his efforts against the japanese (who were allied to Bose) - it did grant him his rise through the ranks and put him in the role of the Indian army chief at a crucial point in India's history. I can't spit on one part of his history (as a lackey of the brits) and praise another! He was a man of his times and it all contributed to what he became and did for India.
So, cause is not important?!! Hain, ji!
So, you are saying that because Noor Inayat Khan was of Indian origin, her bravery must be admired. This is a very faulty premise. In fact, generally, people work other way around i.e. as long as the cause is 'right', the origins can be ignored. Generally, people admire public figures to the extent that they worked for the 'cause'. This is the general way. But, some people get carried away and want to deify the figures and celebrating them blindly even in those instances when the actions or words of these figures went against the cause. This is true for all figures. Bose or Manekshaw....
But, you want to ignore the cause and blindly admire any bravery shown by any Indian. Fine then! But, are you actually ready to practice this view in all cases i.e. admire the bravery of the Indian(or Indian origin) regardless of the cause? I hope you are not propping up this argument just to suit your present case. Are you willing to practice it in all cases? If you practice it in all cases, then it can get very tricky. You would have to admire people from all kinds of causes(even 'sinister' ones).
---
PS: I agree with Bji.
brihaspati wrote:No need to assume I am contradicting you.

my position has been clear on this for a long time, and we exchanged on this before too. People switched their formal loyalties like changing old clothes. Previously they might have justified it by detaching from and raising loyalty above any concept of "nationhood". "Oath" - the concept so important for a foreign ruler to insist as superior to identification with ones birth culture and identity - was paramount. The "oath" could also be the smooth road to switch.
Question: if in the future, a new foreign regime invades and becomes the formal ruler of India by right of conquest - and becomes legitimate authority as recognized by international bodies say : and the Indian army takes a new oath to this new state led by a foreign regime, will the "oath" excuse be justified too?
But from a pragmatic viewpoint, I agree - there is great tactical value in having very loyal servants to the ex-ruler switching allegiance to a new ruler. They could be most valuable in their eagerness.