will the liar hagiographer of the Raj and Nehru
(1) put it down that there is no scholarly assessment of Nehru's limited impact as far as British strategic needs were concerned, that there is no scholarly conclusion that JLN's moves at Bandung helped China and Chou, that there is no scholarly record or British FO/CO manipulating and shaping up the "delegates" at Bandung to a sufficient degree.
(2) can he drop his finance/managers sleek lying and misrepresenting hat to point where British-university-education was equated to the "class that collaborated" in the discussions following on from the post on honbl PM MM Singh's Oxford acceptance speech? invention of lies and their attribution was a characteristic of the British propaganda machinery - so its not that surprising coming from this retarded liar.
(3) can he again formally put it down that there was no "influence" or pressure on Nehru from anyone connected to UK to postpone going ahead with buying Soviet aircraft? He was claiming that JLN went against UK to go along with Soviets. I had not mentioned which period of "sale" and postponement I was talking about - and no Hunter/Mig was mentioned - simply to wait and see which part of the chain of events the liar whitewasher of the British record chooses to feign silence on. The liar has a habit of handwaving and ignoring factoids when they go against his bootlicking propaganda.
(4) can the liar finally acknowledge and explain as to why he pretended not knowing about public domain material like the stevens report while he was shouting about how constrained the British state and police were to act within the "constraints" of the "law"? It would be refreshing to even hear once truth from him that he deliberately kept silent on it because otherwise his agenda of whitewashing British state role would be jeopardized!
As an interesting issue raised by this clever obfuscator of issues : if we compare the various "leaders" getting "educated at British universities"
S.C.B : <1 year - as part of requirement for ICS - Fitzwilliam Col.
Sardar Patel : 2.5 years - not at Brit "school" or "college" but to qualify for the legal practice.
JLN : 7 years - from 1905 to 1912 - all the way from "schooling" to graduation to qualifying at the "Bar".
C. Rajagopalachari :
Babu Rajendra Prasad
PVNSR
The case of IG's "education at British uni" is interesting on its own: from the polite wiki summary
Indira was mostly taught at home by tutors, and intermittently attended school until matriculation in 1934.[nb 1] She went on to study at the Viswa Bharati University in Calcutta.[12] A year later, however, she had to leave university to attend to her ailing mother in Europe.[13] While there, it was decided that Indira would continue her education at the University of Oxford in Britain.[14] After her mother passed away, she briefly attended the Badminton School before enrolling at Somerville College in 1937 to read history.[15] Indira had to take the entrance examination twice; having failed at her first attempt, with a poor performance in Latin.[15] At Oxford, she did well in history, political science and economics, but her grades in Latin—a compulsory subject—remained poor.[16][17]
During her time in Europe, Ms. Indira was plagued with ill-health and was constantly attended by doctors. She had to make repeated trips to Switzerland to recover, disrupting her studies. She was being treated by the famed Swiss doctor Auguste Rollier in 1940, when the Nazi armies rapidly conquered Europe. Indira tried to return to England through Portugal but was left stranded for nearly two months. She managed to enter England in early 1941, and from there returned to India without completing her studies at Oxford. The university later conferred on her an honorary degree.
That makes <4 years [no way of counting continuous attendance proportion]
If patterns are to be made out - with duration of "propah British uni education" - seems like there is a negative correlation with positive role for India.
