Bharat Rakshak

TRAVAILS WITHOUT EMPIRE
Engaging with France, Germany and Japan makes better sense for India as Britain declines.
By Gautam Sen (25 February 2013)
London: Britain’s vast last nineteenth century capital exports, right up to the First World War, were financed by trade surpluses with India. Indeed, there is a sustainable argument that continental European industrialization was a significant beneficiary of British investments that originated in Indian trade deficits. These deficits were substantially generated by imperialist British economic policy and the absence of active intervention by the colonial power to promote industrialization in its Indian colony. On the contrary, India was first a victim of British trade discrimination in the eighteenth century, followed by free trade imperialism in the nineteenth once Britain had gained economic ascendancy in critical sectors like textiles. The sovereign countries of continental Europe did not succumb to self-serving British nonsense about free trade and universally adopted Friedrich List’s prescription in favour of trade discrimination and state promotion of domestic industry.

Now the world has come full circle, and David Cameron arrived cap in hand to independent India, making duplicitous apologies about events that no longer matter. On crucial questions like advancing Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere, at this very moment, there was stony silence. Nor was there an expression of regret for the humiliation inflicted on India’s foreign minister at an earlier London conference on Afghanistan, sponsored by the British Foreign Office. The Indian foreign minister was pointedly seated at the rear of the proceedings despite India’s huge financial contribution to the country and vital interest in its future. So long as terrorism originating in AfPak mainly troubles India, Anglo-American concerns will apparently be assuaged. Perhaps the slippery visitor might have also been asked to explain why former foreign secretary David Miliband ingratiated himself with alacrity in 2011 with the fascists now ruling China. The mutt loftily declared that key provisions of the 1914 Simla Accord on the Indo-Tibetan border were invalid despite having no locus standi in the matter. Perfidy is apparently in the blood.

There is grave British anxiety that India is no longer willing to play ball whatever is said publicly by its politicians and bureaucrats. India’s preferred partners in Europe now are France and Germany though Italy seems to have bribed its way into the fray owing to the accident of history that handed India on a platter to someone who cannot abandon its nationality! By contrast, Britain has, dishonourably as always, chosen as its rightful partner the monstrosity of Pakistan it sponsored in 1947, in a devious attempt to retain a toehold in the Indian subcontinent. If there was any doubt on this historical fact, demonstrated by the likes of former Indian ambassador C. Dasgupta and Narinder Singh Sarila in their admirably researched books, it has recently been reaffirmed, chapter and verse, by Mark Curtis in Secret Affairs (Serpent’s Tail, 2012). Indeed, Pakistan will remain a lever in British attempts to influence India, a remnant of its colonial racial pride; something an encounter with the British police will affirm in seconds to a non-white person. The British establishment will also act on behalf of China and, possibly, the US, itself ever opportunistic and unpredictable. All three remain potential adversaries of India despite all public comment to the contrary and supposed common interests in a changed post-Cold War world.

Britain’s economy remains in serious trouble, as low- wage Asian workers eliminate it from manufacturing. The likelihood of a Hecksher-Ohlin-Samuelson reprise in its economic skills through advanced innovation and high value-added services seems unlikely because intellectual property is hard to protect and Asians have already demonstrated their ability to rise to the challenge in these areas of economic activity, supposedly outside their reach. British education is in a parlous condition, with the state system beyond redemption, quite unable to match Asian levels of attainment in the sciences and mathematics. But there is endless waffle about nothing very much, while insane attempts to advance equality only result in grim levelling of all education. It means the gifted are maliciously held back though the poor performers fail to advance despite it. This week will be a moment of reckoning for Britain, with a ratings downgrade by Moody’s threatening to expose all the sins of London’s history of global financial criminality. An exchange rate collapse is possible and even higher levels of inflation that will reduce already depressed living standards even further.

Indian policymakers were right to decline the Euro-fighter with its American components and the possibility of Britain holding back spares at some crucial moment during an encounter with China and its vicious ally, Pakistan. China and Pakistan enjoy highly privileged relations with the British establishment, second only to its shamefully unctuous engagement with the United States. However, India is regarded as a stupid milch cow that will endure all humiliation, unable to even comprehend the duplicity being served up to it. India happens to have been the largest single investor in London in the recent past, but those investments and fifty subsidized places at the hallowed London School of Economics, beholden to Arab and, increasingly, Chinese lucre, will hardly transform Britain’s long history of adversarial attitudes towards it. And should anyone visit areas like the Borough of Camden in Central London, run by some of Britain’s most venal politicians and the incompetent, arrogant bureaucracy, engaging with continental Europe and Japan will always turn out to be the wiser option for India.

Dr Gautam Sen has taught Political Economy at the London School of Economics.

http://www.newsinsight.net/Travailswith ... age=page-1

Bank of Nangland deputy governor Paul Tucker has said negative interest rates should be considered. A negative interest rate would mean the central bank charges banks to hold their money and could encourage them to lend out more of their funds. Speaking to MPs on the Treasury Committee, Mr Tucker said: "This would be an extraordinary thing to do and it needs to be thought through carefully."He said it was one of a number of ideas that he had put up for consideration."I hope we will think about whether there are constraints to setting negative interest rates," Mr Tucker told MPs. Any discussion of negative rates would have to take into account the likely detrimental impact on savers, who have already seen the income from their savings fall since the financial crisis. With interest rates at a record low, there is little scope for central banks to use conventional means to stimulate the UK's weak economy, which has dipped in and out of recession since the 2008 financial crisis.

Britain is already India's biggest European investor. Cameron also emphasized historical, linguistic and cultural ties.Cameron could have mentioned another tie, the legacy of the rule of British common law, albeit British common law as imposed on colonials. The Yanks admired the British legal and political system, but had severe objections to Britain's onerous and demeaning colonial administration (taxation without representation). The Yanks revolted and fought two wars against the Crown. The passage of time, assisted by common security and economic interests, forged the British-American special relationship.Indian memories of British colonial rule are much more recent. Deep resentment lingers. "Brit rhymes with spit," an Indian immigrant to the U.S. told me, in a conversation three decades ago. We were discussing the beneficial legacy of British common law, especially contract law and freedom of expression. Both are economic catalysts. Then anger flashed. Though born after Indian independence (1947), the man was one generation and scarcely 30 years from decolonization. The subcontinent anti-British grievance list includes: misrule, injustice, ethnic and class prejudice, and secondary status in ones own country. However, an angry U.S. citizen circa 1815 -- roughly 30 years after U.S. independence -- might have had the same list, including the ethnic. The grandson of a displaced Canadian French Cajun, now residing in American Louisiana, could harbor a bitter ethnic grievance.

Jhujar wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 17183.html

The Seven Years War and Britain's Passage to India

Though born after Indian independence (1947), the man was one generation and scarcely 30 years from decolonization[/b]. The subcontinent anti-British grievance list includes: misrule, injustice, ethnic and class prejudice, and secondary status in ones own country. However, an angry U.S. citizen circa 1815 -- roughly 30 years after U.S. independence -- might have had the same list, including the ethnic. The grandson of a displaced Canadian French Cajun, now residing in American Louisiana, could harbor a bitter ethnic grievance.

A strain of gonorrhea that was resistant to all recommended antibiotics was found in Japan in 2008, scientists said in 2011. They warned then it could transform a once easily treatable infection into a global health threat.

Last year the World Health Organization said cases of drug-resistant gonorrhea had spread across the world.

The men involved were Zahid Iqbal, 31, Mohammed Sharfaraz Ahmed, 25, Umar Arshad, 24, and Syed Farhan Hussain, 21.

Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons.

Got a shocking information from a friend . This friend recently met with one of the old great scientists of US he had worked on Manhattan project.

Then the old scientist told him about Manhattan project and said that British were planning to put nuclear bombs on India during World War II, if India mutinied or war reached India. He said fortunately the project couldn't make much enriched uranium. There was no material even to test properly (of course people would have heard about the test that was conducted under the Football field of University of Chicago). So there was just one test (Trinity test) in July 1945 and then immediately Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

Very fact that Britain wanted to use nuclear bombs on India during WWII shows that blood thirstiness & genocidal mentality is same for Christiandom (whether it is 1857 or 1947 or even later).

WARNING: What you're about to see is controversial, and may be alarming to some audiences. Viewer discretion is advised.There is a huge problem at the heart of the British financial system…And it could be about to radically change the way you live your life.You see, over the past 100 years, this problem has taken root within our economy, eating up more than £10 trillion in public funds and directly influencing almost every aspect of our lives.It's been behind almost every political argument in the country. Yet no politician has ever come close to solving it.And according to one highly respected group of financial experts, this problem can only have one outcome: total financial collapse.In fact, these experts believe Britain is about to suffer an economic collapse that most people are completely unprepared for.Quite simply, understanding what you need to do to help survive this threat will be the most important thing you do all year.That's why you need to see this controversial new report.It details precisely what they believe is going to happen in the very near future… how we got into this mess… and most importantly, it shows you exactly what you can do to help survive this threat.But be warned – this research is controversial, and may be alarming to some people.Yet if you can put the controversy to one side and see what could be about to happen to our country, we believe you'll have a much better chance of surviving the coming crisis.

Jhujar wrote:The end of Brutain

Bharath.Subramanyam wrote:http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1419416

Got a shocking information from a friend . This friend recently met with one of the old great scientists of US he had worked on Manhattan project.

Then the old scientist told him about Manhattan project and said that British were planning to put nuclear bombs on India during World War II, if India mutinied or war reached India. He said fortunately the project couldn't make much enriched uranium. There was no material even to test properly (of course people would have heard about the test that was conducted under the Football field of University of Chicago). So there was just one test (Trinity test) in July 1945 and then immediately Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

Very fact that Britain wanted to use nuclear bombs on India during WWII shows that blood thirstiness & genocidal mentality is same for Christiandom (whether it is 1857 or 1947 or even later).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_we ... ed_Kingdom
Manhattan Project head Leslie Groves had excluded British scientists from participating in the manufacturing of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, contrary to the intentions of his government for close cooperation, for security reasons. Postwar spy scandals in both countries increased American concerns over atomic secrecy. More importantly, Truman hoped to establish international control over atomic weapons, and sharing information with even a close ally like Britain might have made such controls impossible. Nonetheless, the Americans' refusal to share information, formalised by the McMahon Act of 1946 restricting foreign access to US nuclear technology, shocked and disappointed the British.[38]

Resumption of independent UK efforts
The United Kingdom started independently developing nuclear weapons again shortly after the war. Attlee set up a cabinet sub-committee, the Gen 75 Committee (GEN.75) (known informally as the "Atomic Bomb Committee"), to examine the feasibility as early as 29 August 1945.[38] A September 1945 study forecast that an enemy could build 500 bombs during "ten years of 'peace'", and warned that if 10% of the arsenal was used on the United Kingdom "over night the main base of the British Empire could be rendered ineffective", with enough left for other British forces around the world.[39]:391 The Chief of the Air Staff Arthur Tedder officially requested an atomic weapon in August 1946,[23] but work on a British equivalent to the vast American facilities at Hanford, Washington and Oak Ridge, Tennessee began in February 1946. American refusal to continue nuclear cooperation (except in certain non weapons-related areas in exchange for uranium from the British-controlled supply in the Belgian Congo) only affected the amount of cooperation the British expected to receive,[38] for the government had decided that atomic weapons were vital to the nation regardless of cost:

brihaspati wrote:^^^Yes even now, almost 60 years since Bose's "disappearance", certain documents cannot be revealed to aam Indians because their release to Indians will jeopardize relations with "friendly" countries. Something about an Indian, and not universally hated except by portions of INC and Marxist ideologies, cannot be revealed to Indians because Indians will lose the friendship of certain countries. Those country's gussa is more important to the friends of those countries in India - I guess - than Indian feeling for a much loved revolutionary who never seems to have gushed in eulogy of Brit masters unlike some of those who were handed power.

Jhujar wrote:Both Bhutan and Bhrutain shall be part of Indian Family Union under new Article 372A of the indian Constitution.

eklavya wrote: The INC was out of power from 1977 to 1980, from 1989 to 1991, and from 1996 to 2004.

Are you suggesting that all the parties and leaders in power during these periods were cowards running scared of the anger of "certain countries"?

Or, are you suggesting that the parties and leaders in power during these periods also hated the much loved revolutionary who never gushed in eulogy of Brit masters?

eklavya wrote:

brihaspati wrote:^^^Yes even now, almost 60 years since Bose's "disappearance", certain documents cannot be revealed to aam Indians because their release to Indians will jeopardize relations with "friendly" countries. Something about an Indian, and not universally hated except by portions of INC and Marxist ideologies, cannot be revealed to Indians because Indians will lose the friendship of certain countries. Those country's gussa is more important to the friends of those countries in India - I guess - than Indian feeling for a much loved revolutionary who never seems to have gushed in eulogy of Brit masters unlike some of those who were handed power.

The INC was out of power from 1977 to 1980, from 1989 to 1991, and from 1996 to 2004.

Are you suggesting that all the parties and leaders in power during these periods were cowards running scared of the anger of "certain countries"?

Or, are you suggesting that the parties and leaders in power during these periods also hated the much loved revolutionary who never gushed in eulogy of Brit masters?

brihaspati wrote:Do you really have to sink this far in defending the "Brit masters"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappeara ... andra_Bose
Since rumours were circulating that he was still alive, Indian Political Intelligence arranged for Military Intelligence in New Delhi to investigate the matter. Captain Turner of the War Crimes Liaison Section in Taiwan(formerly called Formosa) was put on to the case and he managed to locate the last person to have seen Bose alive. This was Captain (Medical), who was under arrest in Stanley He gave a statement that resolved the matter: ‘I personally cleaned his injuries with oils and dressed them. He was suffering from extensive burns over the whole of his body, though the most serious were those on his head, chest and thighs. During the first four hours he was semi-conscious...he murmured, and muttered in his state of coma, but never regained consciousness. At about 2300 hrs he died. I injected Formalin into the body and also had the coffin partly filled with lime.’ The coffin was then taken away and Bose's body was cremated.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/200506 ... /main1.htm
Did you believe that he had indeed died in the crash?

Initially, we did not believe it as we had thought it was a decoy and Netaji had escaped. He always maintained that he would never be taken alive. He had approached the Soviet embassy in Tokyo and even as they awaited a response from Moscow, USSR had joined the war against Japan and that was the end of his hope to escape to the Soviet Union. I had felt that he may have managed to escape to Russia and had faked the crash to put the British off his trail. He had done such things earlier and it was completely possible.

When did reality sink in?

It was during the INA trial at Red Fort that I met Habibur Rahman who had been travelling with him in the aircraft and had survived the crash. He confirmed that Netaji had not died in the crash but from the extensive burn injuries that he suffered as a consequence of that crash. Even the Japanese doctor who had treated him had mentioned that there was a tall handsome Indian who had suffered 90 per cent burns and had succumbed to his injuries. At that time, the poor doctor did not known who his special patient was. That is when my INA colleagues and I started to believe that in all probability he was indeed no more.

And as far as the Taiwan government’s denial of any air crash during that period on its soil is concerned all I can say is that the Japanese had destroyed all records. They did not want one bit of paper to fall into the hands of the Allied forces that could prove as evidence for wartime crimes.

Recently declassified CIA, Russian Army’s and United Kingdom’s secret service reports have evidences of spotting Netaji after the crash. It suggests that in 1946, a year after the reported death of Netaji, Joseph Stalin and his cabinet were considering to give refuge to him in Russia.

Well I think it is time we got to the bottom of this controversy. The simplest thing to do is to take his ashes kept at the Renkoji Buddhist Temple in Tokyo and run a DNA match with his daughter. If it is proved that the ashes are indeed of Anita’s father it will settle this mystery for all times to come.

I remember when his nephew the late Sisir Bose had seen the urn at Renkoji Temple he had informed me that it had pieces of bones and even cartilage. This would make the running of the DNA test far easier.

Did you ever believe that he might be living incognito?

Such rumours were part of the building of the myth. Even if Netaji was alive and did not want to return to India after the war ended what was preventing him from living anywhere abroad? Many of his INA colleagues were settled aboard and he could have easily got in touch with any of us.

Again Sisir Bose had personally gone to meet all the babas that were rumoured to be his uncle. As far as Gumnami Baba of Faizabad was concerned, he told me that except for the gold-rimmed glasses there was nothing in common.

There was another baba in some village in rural Bengal who people claimed was Netaji. Sisir Bose wanted to hear him speak. He made four rounds to that village but the baba was always in maun.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/why-subh ... 75766.html
This is Anuj Dhar’s second book on Bose mystery. The first book documented information from the Taiwanese government that claimed that no plane carrying Netaji had ever crashed there.

This second book hints that a baba who died at Faizabad on 16 September 1985 could be Subhas Chandra Bose. He would have been 88 then.

“His handwriting samples had matched with the ones of Bose. And even Justice Mukherjee in an informal talk had admitted that this Faizabad baba could be Bose. He said it in Bengali to Times Now in 2010. He had probably said it off the record. But the camera was rolling and his statement got recorded. It was even telecast,’’ Dhar claims.

eklavya wrote:

brihaspati wrote:Do you really have to sink this far in defending the "Brit masters"?

Its always an amusing sight to find brihaspati wrapping himself up in his tattered old Union Jack and setting it on fire to keep himself warm.

Indian Govt refuses access to files
'Disclosure may lower Bose's public image'

We won't open files and we won't divulge details about Subhas Bose's death. If we do it, the people will be in trouble, the Government will be in trouble and our ties with friendly countries will be in trouble.

Shorn of its gobbledygook, this is the crux of the Union Home Secretary Kamal Pande's affidavit submitted before the Mukherjee Commission. The Commission, probing the 'death' of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on January 1, 2001 to file a supplementary affidavit regarding the claim of privilege for certain files on Subhas Bose. And this is what Home Secretary Kamal Pande, evidently the man who knows too much, has to say:

"I have carefully examined the documents... and I am bonafide satisfied that the disclosure of the documents would cause injury to the public interest and the public interest would suffer thereby.

"I believe that disclosure of the nature and contents of these documents would also hurt the sentiments of the people at large and may evoke wide-spread reactions as these documents if disclosed may lower the image of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.

"Diplomatic relations with friendly countries may also be adversely affected if the said documents are disclosed."


Is the MHA caught in a time wrap or something? Why would there be a public outcry now? ' Wide-spread reaction' against what? This is year 2001 and, for successive governments at least, Subhas Bose died' 56 years ago.

Why on earth will the details on a death caused by an 'accidental air crash' at the end of World War II cause any setback to India's diplomatic ties with her friends? An accident is an accident, no one is going to blame country 'A' or country 'B' for it. What can possibly lower the image of a towering figure? What is so revolting about these Top Secret files?

The Government's slip is showing. It could also be a case of Freudian slip on Mr Pande's part? His 10 page duly attested document goes on to put under restraint over a half- century- old public concern. The truth about Subhas Bose's death is still not going to be available. Otherwise, why the departmental head of the MHA will make such sweeping and startling statements?

brihaspati wrote:

eklavya wrote:
Its always an amusing sight to find brihaspati wrapping himself up in his tattered old Union Jack and setting it on fire to keep himself warm.

The real ekalavya of Mahabharata gave his thumb as devotion for his imagined guru, who finished his career. For the ekalavya here, the proving of devotion is not yet over! So he sets himself the task of defending the honour of his absentee master against all mockers?

eklavya wrote:Poor fake brihaspati is only revealing his own slavish mental state by his obsession with his Brit masters and licking their boots.

brihaspati wrote:So much research skills displayed in looking up wiki - tribune - even the ref on Anuj Dhar could be discovered. But this last name is also a prolific author on the topic apart from being part of an effort to highlight GOI's feet dragging on this. So the Faizabad story had to be told but not this one -

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/spec ... ji/mha.htm

Indian Govt refuses access to files
'Disclosure may lower Bose's public image'

We won't open files and we won't divulge details about Subhas Bose's death. If we do it, the people will be in trouble, the Government will be in trouble and our ties with friendly countries will be in trouble.

Shorn of its gobbledygook, this is the crux of the Union Home Secretary Kamal Pande's affidavit submitted before the Mukherjee Commission. The Commission, probing the 'death' of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on January 1, 2001 to file a supplementary affidavit regarding the claim of privilege for certain files on Subhas Bose. And this is what Home Secretary Kamal Pande, evidently the man who knows too much, has to say:

"I have carefully examined the documents... and I am bonafide satisfied that the disclosure of the documents would cause injury to the public interest and the public interest would suffer thereby.

"I believe that disclosure of the nature and contents of these documents would also hurt the sentiments of the people at large and may evoke wide-spread reactions as these documents if disclosed may lower the image of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.

"Diplomatic relations with friendly countries may also be adversely affected if the said documents are disclosed."


Is the MHA caught in a time wrap or something? Why would there be a public outcry now? ' Wide-spread reaction' against what? This is year 2001 and, for successive governments at least, Subhas Bose died' 56 years ago.

Why on earth will the details on a death caused by an 'accidental air crash' at the end of World War II cause any setback to India's diplomatic ties with her friends? An accident is an accident, no one is going to blame country 'A' or country 'B' for it. What can possibly lower the image of a towering figure? What is so revolting about these Top Secret files?

The Government's slip is showing. It could also be a case of Freudian slip on Mr Pande's part? His 10 page duly attested document goes on to put under restraint over a half- century- old public concern. The truth about Subhas Bose's death is still not going to be available. Otherwise, why the departmental head of the MHA will make such sweeping and startling statements?

An ardent researcher who could find all the damning evidence that avoids the "Brit" angle and the "INC" touch, surely can now find the reference to Mukherjee Commision's trials and travails, and a specific reference to the British Governments extended secrecy rule applied on relevant docs on Bose that puts away the British held docs until at least 2020. Actually a further clause can be applied to put them out of public reach even after 2020. Since the researchers in UK will have potential access to this - they can try out and see what they are told. It will be illuminating. But again if one is "serving" the Brits in anyway - they need to be cautious to show curiosity on this even as a "researcher" unless he/she has adequate clearance.

Since Anuj Dhar's "Faizabad" bit could be found and not other stuff concerning GOI and "foreign nations",
http://www.missionnetaji.org/article/ci ... ubhas-bose

brihaspati wrote: ekalavya is crucial to understand why Indian independence remained incomplete and how ruling regimes and "class" which came to power after the Brits helped liquidate the regime's potential rivals and the new regime collaborated in the long term neo-imperialist designs of continued control and manipulation of the subcontinent through creation and protection of Islamism and Islamist nation states. Such "classes" and groups would push for a propaganda that the past should not remembered, and that the Brits as a ruling structure must now be taken as all-out "friends" of India.

The ekalavyas of our world are the ideological agents of this continuing alliance of betrayers and subverters of Indian independence. The ones who will do everything possible with their access to and knowledge of Indian society to help the alliance cause.

devesh wrote:^^^
that's the point isn't it. the "central authorities" forcing us to rely on "conspiracy theories", instead of releasing all the records and making clear to us what's what....who is responsible then for the CT's? is it not the GoI and its allied state functionaries who insist on maintaining secrecy on the issue? if there is nothing to hide, and if the master's uniform is so neat and lustrously shiny, why bother with the secrecy??

brihasspati wrote: ideological agents of this continuing alliance of betrayers and subverters of Indian independence. The ones who will do everything possible with their access to and knowledge of Indian society to help the alliance cause.

brihasspati wrote:the IAS has been recruited and lived under Congress regimes for most of Independent India, and admins take much longer than 5 years to be properly replaced in the interests of political regimes] - is revealing.

brihasspati wrote: If Indian admin is scared of damaging relations with foreign nations - the one elephant in the room left is UK.

Did Bose fall to Anglo-American plot?
It is generally believed that Japan surrendered because of the A-bomb on Hiroshima. This is not true. Even before Hiroshima, Tokyo was burning as a result of the carpet bombing by USA. Japan, therefore, had offered to surrender. However, this offer was not accepted immediately.

Instead, Japan was asked to send a secret high-power delegation to Portugal to meet British and American representatives. If we put two and two together, it is clear that, at this secret conclave, Japan was told, among other things, to finish off Subhas.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/spec ... lkani1.htm

Although Japan had lot of respect for Subhas, it was not in a position to resist this demand. The result was, in the words of experts, the "completely irrelevant and illogical" crash of the bomber. During the whole of Pacific war, no bomber had crashed in that manner.

It is significant America not only left the Mikado untouched but he was also allowed to continue as Emperor of Japan. Obviously, there was a trade-off.

The British were bent upon seeing the end of Subhas because, had he returned, Subhas and not Nehru would have become Prime Minister of India.

Also, with Subhash back in India, there would have been no partition, since Muslims thought better of him than of any other top Congress leader. Neither development would have suited the British. They wanted Anglo-phile Nehru as Prime Minister of India - and they wanted India divided for imperial purposes.

devesh wrote:this super-duper Home Secretary has decided grace his opinion on the rest of us, and we, as the idiotic Indians, should simply accept whatever drivel comes from him??

By Philip Sherwell, US Editor

10:00PM GMT 09 Mar 2013

Mr Blair is accused of being “evangelical” in his approach to the world and hence to toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime, of making mistakes which led to British forces being ill-prepared for the invasion and caught out by the violent aftermath, and of being so determined to support President George W Bush that he imposed no preconditions for Britain going to war alongside the United States.

Meanwhile, senior Bush White House staff confirmed for the first time to The Sunday Telegraph that they had viewed it as a certainty that Mr Blair would back any US-led invasion, long before he publicly committed Britain to taking part.

They say he made clear his unwavering support for US policy nearly a year before the invasion, after a visit to the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Senior Bush White House staff say Tony Blair made clear his unwavering support for US policy after a visit to Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas

Related Articles

Sir Christopher Meyer: 'Im with you whatever', Blair told Bush
09 Mar 2013

Andrew Gilligan: 'we have to face the truth and admit we failed'
09 Mar 2013

The Iraq war files
22 Nov 2009

George Bush was 'the worst thing to ever happen to Tony Blair', says David Miliband
05 Mar 2013

Prescott: Iraq War 'can't be justified'
01 Mar 2013

Tony Blair: I've given up trying to persuade people invading Iraq was right
26 Feb 2013

This appears to contradict Downing Street’s assertion at the time that Britain would intervene militarily against the Iraqi dictator only if all other avenues, including weapons inspections and United Nations sanctions, had been exhausted.

The revelations come in a series of exclusive interviews and articles for The Sunday Telegraph ahead of the 10th anniversary of the “shock and awe” bombing campaign that began on March 20, and the land invasion involving 45,000 British troops that followed a few hours later.

Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain’s ambassador to Washington during the run-up to the war, writes in this newspaper today that Mr Blair’s mistakes on Iraq flowed from a “black and white” world view that was “more evangelical than the American Christian Right”.

He says that Mr Blair’s “unquestioning support” for the president “eliminated what should have been salutary British influence over American decision-making” after the prime minister became “an honorary member of this inner group” of neo-conservatives and military hawks who were setting the agenda in the United States.

He notes that a “failure to plan meticulously” for the aftermath of Saddam’s overthrow “led to almost a decade of violent chaos and the ultimate humiliation of British forces”.

Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the Armed Forces at the time, describes how the government’s “political nervousness” delayed military preparations for the conflict.

Mr Blair’s government “wanted to avoid giving the impression that war with Iraq was inevitable”, he writes inside this newspaper; as a result, the formal decision was taken “somewhat late in the day, which inevitably foreshortened the Armed Forces’ preparation time”.

Another senior officer, Maj Gen Graham Binns, who commanded a front line brigade in Iraq, discloses that financial restraints left British forces undertrained and lacking key equipment. In addition, the British were “inadequately prepared, mentally and physically, for post-conflict stabilisation”, he writes.

Stephen Hadley, Mr Bush’s deputy national security adviser, said that at a private meeting between the prime minister and the US president almost a year before the invasion was launched, “Mr Blair said that if it came to it, then at the end of the day, he would be with us if we had to move militarily against Saddam Hussein”.

He said that during the meeting at Crawford in April 2002, the position spelt out by Mr Blair was, “I am with you to see this through to the end.”

Andrew Card, the president’s chief of staff, said: “I don’t recall that any conditions were discussed. What was clear was that we shared values and stood together.”

Mark Etherington, a Foreign Office official put in charge of an entire Iraqi province six months after the invasion, said there were inadequate troops to keep it secure because the Iraqi army and police “had ceased to exist as coherent groupings”. He says the British effort was “fatally lacking binding strategy under unified leadership”.

The revelations follow years of debate and recrimination over the decision to commit Britain to joining in the invasion, including its legality, and over the failure to locate any of the weapons of mass destruction whose supposed existence was the main official justification for going to war.

Mr Blair has been accused by critics of being a “war criminal” for his role in the conflict which ultimately cost the lives of 179 British soldiers and an estimated 100,000 civilians, and admitted last month that he had “long since given up trying to persuade people it was the right decision”.

Last week, David Miliband, the former foreign secretary, said the election of George W Bush as US president was “the worst thing that ever happened to Tony Blair” because of the direction in which he led the world.

The decision to go to war in March 2003, after United Nations weapons inspectors left Iraq and without the fresh UN resolution that Britain and the US had been seeking, divided opinion in Britain and led to resignations from the government. In the end the Conservatives backed the decision, but the Liberal Democrats opposed it.

A lengthy inquiry led by Sir John Chilcot into the circumstances, ordered in June 2009, heard evidence from hundreds of witnesses and examined thousands of documents — including confidential correspondence between Mr Blair and Mr Bush — but is still several months from producing its report and conclusions.

The statement by former White House officials that Mr Blair laid down no conditions for British support for the US-led operation comes despite Downing Street assertions to the contrary.

Mr Blair has said that he pushed for the United States to put more weight behind efforts to reach a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, and that he encouraged the US to attempt what became known as “the UN route”.

But it was widely believed that soon after the 9/11 attacks on the United States by al-Qaeda, the “neo-conservatives” within the Bush administration, led by Dick Cheney, the vice-president, decided that the Iraqi regime posed a similar threat and must be dealt with militarily.

Sir Christopher lays out a series of missteps by British and US leaders but writes: “The biggest mistake of all was to conflate Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, as if they were cut from the same violent cloth.”

Despite delivering crucial diplomatic support for Washington as other European states wavered, Mr Blair’s concerns about domestic politics meant that military preparations for the invasion were hampered, even though British Armed Forces chiefs had long considered the war inevitable.

Gen Binns, who commanded the 7th Armoured Brigade in the invasion, describes political and financial constraints on preparations for war. “Our higher level training, due to take place in Poland, was curtailed for financial reasons,” he writes. “I took my officers away for some conceptual training around a model but this limited activity was no replica for realistic training.”

As the force began to assemble in northern Kuwait, he recalls, they discovered that the wrong kind of clothing had been sent from Britain.

He says: “We were grateful for several boxes of chefs’ whites and ceremonial dress, but would have preferred more body armour and desert camouflage uniform.

“The Marine Corps was very generous with its supplies – not always knowingly.”

Gen James Conway, the US Marine commander in charge of a force of 90,000, of whom 25,000 were British, recalled asking General Robin Brims, the commander of the 1st UK Armoured Division, what his capabilities were.

“He said: ‘I have great tanks, but I don’t have the logistics for them to go very far’, so everything pointed to them taking and holding Basra.”

Military chiefs on both sides of the Atlantic excoriated the decision by Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief, to disband the Iraqi army and sack all officials who belonged to Saddam’s party shortly after the victory.

Soon afterwards the insurgency began, leading to years of bloodshed and the loss of more lives than during the invasion.

Gen Jackson writes of the “inexplicable decisions to disband the Iraqi security forces and to sack Ba’ath party members, however junior”. Gen Conway said: “I’ve been disappointed by the results in Iraq. I think we had a great opportunity for a much better end-state.

“One of the first things the CPA did was to disband the Iraqi army. We ended up fighting those same men in Anbar province for four years.”

He also expressed shock that no weapons of mass destruction were ever discovered, since that was “in large measure” why they were in Iraq. “We checked every bunker between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad and there were just none to be found.”

Ari Fleischer, the official White House spokesman at the time, said the US was equally let down. “I don’t believe that George Bush would have gone to war if we concluded that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD.”