Mountbatten's Death

indioblack

Delancey wrote: »

I recall at the time that India declared a week of mourning . Having said that I am unsure if such tributes are not the norm for India ?

I think it unlikely - in a country the size of India there could well be diverse opinions about Mountbatten, the British and, in the whole sub-continent, partition and the way it was carried out.

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

As the British appointed mouthpiece or Viceroy or whatever you prefer, he is seen as one of the main protagantists of the partition of India.

" Mountbatten concluded that a united India was an unachievable goal and he resigned himself to accept a plan that called for the partitioning of an independent India and Pakistan. " Scroll down to Last Viceroy: http://www.mangaloreanrecipes.com/recipes/mangaloregoa/146-evolution-of-indian-subcontinent/2181-india-after-the-1857-revolt.html

The majority of the natives had a different view but that didn't count of course.

That link highlights nicely the issues raised in the discussion thread. You have taken one small paragraph, used it to back up your own point and added your own conjecture.

Mountbatten chaired the meetings where partition was agreed but there were other parties that played a much bigger role, Mohammad Ali Jinnah for example.

from what I can gather from reading up on the subject and subsequent discussions with quite a few knowledgeable Indians, Mountbatten's role in the partitions largely ignored compared to that of Jinnah and Nehru.

the only time Mountbatten seems to get the blame for partition is when someone is trying to justify the cold blooded murder of two old people and a couple of kids.

wolfpawnat

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the only time Mountbatten seems to get the blame for partition is when someone is trying to justify the cold blooded murder of two old people and a couple of kids.

I place blame on him for the partition, but I do not justify the killing any innocent person!

Montbatten will always be remembered for how he died, not for what he "achieved" in his lifetime. Many people who were killed during the Troubles will not be remembered for what they did in life, only the horrible deaths they had!

CDfm

He does get held responsible for partition but his job was to get the British out of India by 1948 and avoid civil war. Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah etc were noted politicians and there are religious and caste issues in India and they could not reach an agreement with the Muslims either. There was the added complication that Nehru appears to have been "banging Mountbatten's missus". He had also the task of protecting Britains trade interests. It was his decision to recommend partition but ultimately such a decision rested with the British Government and the Indian politicians.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/14/stories/2008111456461100.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6884697.ece

And yes, I am with wolfpawnat here, the issue has nothing to do with the assassination of the Mountbatten family.

HellsAngel

Delancey wrote: »

I recall at the time that India declared a week of mourning . Having said that I am unsure if such tributes are not the norm for India ?

The Indian govt probably did, that's the face govt's show for the expediency of buisness and commerce etc. However what Joe Bloggs on the street thinks can sometimes be quite different.

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That link highlights nicely the issues raised in the discussion thread. You have taken one small paragraph, used it to back up your own point and added your own conjecture.

He asks me on post #17 regarding Mountbatten's role in the Partition of India "And you know this how? " and then criticises me when I provide the link !!!!!! i guess their just ain't pleaseing some people

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Mountbatten chaired the meetings where partition was agreed but there were other parties that played a much bigger role, Mohammad Ali Jinnah for example.

from what I can gather from reading up on the subject and subsequent discussions with quite a few knowledgeable Indians, Mountbatten's role in the partitions largely ignored compared to that of Jinnah and Nehru.

the only time Mountbatten seems to get the blame for partition is when someone is trying to justify the cold blooded murder of two old people and a couple of kids.

Yeah sure, he was just like a secetary taking down notes and no invovlement :rolleyes: He had as little to do with the partition of India as Llyod George and Churchill had to do with the partitioning of Ireland :rolleyes:

" Mountbatten concluded that a united India was an unachievable goal and he resigned himself to accept a plan that called for the partitioning of an independent India and Pakistan. " Scroll down to Last Viceroy: http://www.mangaloreanrecipes.com/re...57-revolt.html

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

He asks me on post #17 regarding Mountbatten's role in the Partition of India "And you know this how? " and then criticises me when I provide the link !!!!!! i guess their just ain't pleaseing some people


Yeah sure, he was just like a secetary taking down notes and no invovlement :rolleyes: He had as little to do with the partition of India as Llyod George and Churchill had to do with the partitioning of Ireland :rolleyes:

" Mountbatten concluded that a united India was an unachievable goal and he resigned himself to accept a plan that called for the partitioning of an independent India and Pakistan. " Scroll down to Last Viceroy: http://www.mangaloreanrecipes.com/re...57-revolt.html

He concluded that a united India was an achievable goal, because the main parties would not agree. How ****ing difficult is that to understand?

And next time find a decent link, not one that claims the UK wanted a divided so it could have a puppet state (pakistan ffs,) in the sub continent.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

He concluded that a united India was an achievable goal, because the main parties would not agree. How ****ing difficult is that to understand?

You seem to know a lot more about India than us and haven't posted any links -but - on the ." ****ing " issue as you have raised it.

As recent as 2009 the Indian government wouldn't allow a movie about Edwina Mountbatten and Nehru's affair so we can see facts but cannot see how significant they were.

It is a very sensitive subject.

From The Times

October 22, 2009

Film about Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten stalls after India decries love scenes

Chris Ayres in Los Angeles and Jeremy Page in Delhi

A controversial film about the “intimate” relationship between Lord Mountbatten’s wife and India’s first prime minister has been put on hold by a Hollywood studio after the Indian Government demanded that the love scenes should be deleted.
The film — an adaptation of the Alex von Tunzelmann book Indian Summer — was to star Hugh Grant as the last Viceroy to India and Cate Blanchett as Edwina, his allegedly unfaithful wife.
Lady Mountbatten was an “It girl” of the 1920s — one biographer said that she had “embarked on two decades of frivolity” after her marriage to Lord Mountbatten in 1922 — and is believed to have had an affair with Jawaharlal Nehru, who led India from its independence in 1947 until his death from a heart attack in 1964.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6884697.ece

One might reasonably speculate that after 1936's abdication crisis the King, Mountbatten's cousin and entre into the establishment may have been concerned and wanted the Mountbattens out of there.

What was the deal, Mountbatten may very well have been bothered to the point that he was not able to conclude negotiations on a united India.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2115350.ece

And next time find a decent link, not one that claims the UK wanted a divided so it could have a puppet state (pakistan ffs,) in the sub continent.

Britain was still a superpower and an Empire and, as this preceeded the Suez Crisis by some 8 years , it is a reasonable point that Britain would have considered militarily backing a friendly regime.

It does seem a reasonable point and Mountbatten was a military man.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

You seem to know a lot more about India than us and haven't posted any links -but - on the ." ****ing " issue as you have raised it.

As recent as 2009 the Indian government wouldn't allow a movie about Edwina Mountbatten and Nehru's affair so we can see facts but cannot see how significant they were.

It is a very sensitive subject.



One might reasonably speculate that after 1936's abdication crisis the King, Mountbatten's cousin and entre into the establishment may have been concerned and wanted the Mountbattens out of there.

What was the deal, Mountbatten may very well have been bothered to the point that he was not able to conclude negotiations on a united India.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2115350.ece





Britain was still a superpower and an Empire and, as this preceeded the Suez Crisis by some 8 years , it is a reasonable point that Britain would have considered militarily backing a friendly regime.

It does seem a reasonable point and Mountbatten was a military man.

India is a fascinating country with fascinating cultures and history.

Indian independence only happened 60 years ago, there are a million and one books, articles and sites dedicated to the subject.

The only pitfalls are those that have been written with an agenda, but those are usually easy to spot as they will ultimately end up having a rant about Muslims/Hindus/Sikhs.

You overlook two main things regarding Britain in 1948. Firstly it was exhausted from 6 years of total war and wanted all its troops home. Secondly, the Attlee government was a Labour government and wanted to resolve the "Indian Problem" as quickly as possible (Clement Attlee could arguably be accused of being responsible for the partition of India long before Mountbatten). Attlee's main push was for nationalisation of Britain's industry and the creation of the NHS.

As far as Mountbatten is concerned, Nehru sleeping with his wife could well have been a contributing factor to bringing forward independence, but the escalating civil war in India is the generally accepted reason.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/india_1900_to_1947.htm

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

India is a fascinating country with fascinating cultures and history.

Indian independence only happened 60 years ago, there are a million and one books, articles and sites dedicated to the subject.

The only pitfalls are those that have been written with an agenda, but those are usually easy to spot as they will ultimately end up having a rant about Muslims/Hindus/Sikhs.

You overlook two main things regarding Britain in 1948. Firstly it was exhausted from 6 years of total war and wanted all its troops home. Secondly, the Attlee government was a Labour government and wanted to resolve the "Indian Problem" as quickly as possible (Clement Attlee could arguably be accused of being responsible for the partition of India long before Mountbatten). Attlee's main push was for nationalisation of Britain's industry and the creation of the NHS.

As far as Mountbatten is concerned, Nehru sleeping with his wife could well have been a contributing factor to bringing forward independence, but the escalating civil war in India is the generally accepted reason.

http://wwwmhistorylearningsite.co.uk/india_1900_to_1947.htm

Mountbatten could not have stopped the civil war but was still representing Britains interests.

I think it is wrong to attribute anything like a key decision making role to Mountbatten.He had nothing like the influence of Nehru, Jinnah or Gandhi.Gandhi is remembered more like a prophet than a politician and his sleeping arrangements caused a bit of controvercy too and I cant imagine they impressed the Muslims.

At a personal level, Nehru's relationship with his wife hurt him and there does seem to be a bit of denial going around about it.

I can't imagine it (the affair) was insignificant to Mountbatten and was probably the elephant in the room in all negotiations. It cant have not influenced the situation as it was so massive.

Partition was the easy option and it got in the way of taking the more difficult route.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

Mountbatten could not have stopped the civil war but was still representing Britains interests.

I think it is wrong to attribute anything like a key decision making role to Mountbatten.He had nothing like the influence of Nehru, Jinnah or Gandhi.Gandhi is remembered more like a prophet than a politician and his sleeping arrangements caused a bit of controvercy too and I cant imagine they impressed the Muslims.

At a personal level, Nehru's relationship with his wife hurt him and there does seem to be a bit of denial going around about it.

I can't imagine it (the affair) was insignificant to Mountbatten and was probably the elephant in the room in all negotiations. It cant have not influenced the situation as it was so massive.

Partition was the easy option and it got in the way of taking the more difficult route.

Jinna's day of action had already resulted in the deaths of over 5000 people, so that would have been weighing heavily on the minds of all those in the room.

It is worth noting as well that Gandhi was murdered because of his "Liberal" views regarding Muslims.

CDfm

On the local history in Mullaghmore

Here is a link to the Estate on the Landed Estates database

http://www.landedestates.ie/LandedEstates/jsp/estate-show.jsp?id=247

Here is a picture of the Castle built in 1874 for Lord Palmerstown - Mountbatten had married into money.

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

He concluded that a united India was an achievable goal, because the main parties would not agree. How ****ing difficult is that to understand?

And next time find a decent link, not one that claims the UK wanted a divided so it could have a puppet state (pakistan ffs,) in the sub continent.

It's not too ****ing difficult is that to understand unless who happen to be a typical jingoistic Brit who clings onto Britain the well intentioned, benevolent 'peacemaker' :rolleyes:

CDfm wrote: »

You seem to know a lot more about India than us and haven't posted any links -but - on the ." ****ing " issue as you have raised it.

Yes indeed CDfm.

it is a reasonable point that Britain would have considered militarily backing a friendly regime.

It does seem a reasonable point and Mountbatten was a military man.

Yes, colonial powers don't do benevolence to the natives. Jinnah was but a puppet for the British, an oppurtunist puppet who willingly played the role of a political agent provocateur in Britian's attempts to stall Indian independence by divide and rule.


Agent provocateur - is a person employed by the police or other entity to act undercover to entice others to act rashly often against their own interests.

HellsAngel

Here's what the Louth TD Gerry Adams had to say regarding Mountbatten's death - " The IRA gave clear reasons for the execution. I think it is unfortunate that anyone has to be killed, but the furore created by Mountbatten's death showed up the hypocritical attitude of the media establishment. As a member of the House of Lords, Mountbatten was an emotional figure in both British and Irish politics. What the IRA did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people "

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

Here's what the Louth TD Gerry Adams had to say regarding Mountbatten's death - " The IRA gave clear reasons for the execution. I think it is unfortunate that anyone has to be killed, but the furore created by Mountbatten's death showed up the hypocritical attitude of the media establishment. As a member of the House of Lords, Mountbatten was an emotional figure in both British and Irish politics. What the IRA did to him is what Mountbatten had been doing all his life to other people "

Hopefully we will soon be able to say the same about Gerry.

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

It's not too ****ing difficult is that to understand unless who happen to be a typical jingoistic Brit who clings onto Britain the well intentioned, benevolent 'peacemaker' :rolleyes:

Yes indeed CDfm.

Yes, colonial powers don't do benevolence to the natives. Jinnah was but a puppet for the British, an oppurtunist puppet who willingly played the role of a political agent provocateur in Britian's attempts to stall Indian independence by divide and rule.


Agent provocateur - is a person employed by the police or other entity to act undercover to entice others to act rashly often against their own interests.

You should really read the link I posted. Then google Indian Partition, there is plenty there to read.

If anything, Britain rushed the independence of India, not stalled it.

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You should really read the link I posted. Then google Indian Partition, there is plenty there to read.

If anything, Britain rushed the independence of India, not stalled it.

In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won a clear majority winning 716 out of 1161 caputuring a clear majority in six out of the 11 provinces. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the Brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future. - Obviously, like Ireland, the people of India did not know what was best for them, Mountbatten and the gang did :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://www.indianetzone.com/35/provincial_elections_1936-1937_british_india.htm

MarchDub

Leonard Woolf, the English political theorist, wrote an interesting summing up in 1967 of British intransigence and procrastination as regards Indian independence:

I have no doubt that if the British Governments had been prepared to grant in 1900 what they refused to grant in 1900 but granted in 1920; or to grant in 1920 what they refused in 1920 but granted in 1940; or to grant in 1940 what they refused in 1940 but granted in 1947 - then nine-tenths of the misery , hated, and violence, the imprisonings and terrorism, the murders, floggings, shootings, assassinations, even the racial massacres would have been avoided; the transference of power might well have been accomplished peacefully, even possibly without Partition.

ejmaztec

MarchDub wrote: »

Leonard Woolf, the English political theorist, wrote an interesting summing up in 1967 of British intransigence and procrastination as regards Indian independence:

I think that it was all down to lack of experience in handing things back in general.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Leonard Woolf, the English political theorist, wrote an interesting summing up in 1967 of British intransigence and procrastination as regards Indian independence:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

In 1937 provincial elections the Congress won a clear majority winning 716 out of 1161 caputuring a clear majority in six out of the 11 provinces. Jinnah's Muslim league failed to win a single province. But still the Brits maintained Jinnah and his organisation as a deciding entity in India's future. - Obviously, like Ireland, the people of India did not know what was best for them, Mountbatten and the gang did :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://www.indianetzone.com/35/provincial_elections_1936-1937_british_india.htm

Roll your eyes all you like, the fact of the matter is that Jinna's Muslim League were chosen to represent the Muslim population, something which Nehru and Gandhi apparantly had no problem with.

But, importantly to this thread, the decision was made by the British Government, not Mountbatten. The British government had voted for Indian independence by a set date and Mountbatten was sent to oversee talks to make it happen. As I said earlier, Clement Attlee should be held accountable long before Mountbatten.

CDfm

HellsAngel wrote: »

Obviously, like Ireland, the people of India did not know what was best for them, Mountbatten and the gang did :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

http://www.indianetzone.com/35/provincial_elections_1936-1937_british_india.htm

I don't think Mountbatten had any real political power as opposed to administrative power.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You should really read the link I posted. Then google Indian Partition, there is plenty there to read.

If anything, Britain rushed the independence of India, not stalled it.

It did not rush it, it was the will of the people, and the pace was dictated by WWII.

And, its government acted indecisively, it should have recalled Mountbatten as his wife's behaviour had undermined his authority to negotiate a settlement based on unification.

Nehru was really into his partition.

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

It did not rush it, it was the will of the people, and the pace was dictated by WWII.

And, its government acted indecisively, it should have recalled Mountbatten as his wife's behaviour had undermined his authority to negotiate a settlement based on unification.

Nehru was really into his partition.

It rushed it in that it set a deadline and then tried to beat that deadline, for one reason or another.

Despite the threat of all out civil war, it may have been better to reach a proper settlement rather than just get signatures on paper.

They should have spent more time drawing up boundaries and agreed them before independence and they should have resolved Kashmir for starters.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It's called analysis - based on the historic record.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It rushed it in that it set a deadline and then tried to beat that deadline, for one reason or another.

Despite the threat of all out civil war, it may have been better to reach a proper settlement rather than just get signatures on paper.

Whether or not there was civil war was not their decision and pure speculation.

They should have spent more time drawing up boundaries and agreed them before independence and they should have resolved Kashmir for starters.

Who made the decision, the Mountbattens were in India for how long, 15 months ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH4SUZGUt_w

Perhaps Mountbatten did not care what the Indian's did to each other after his wife's betrayal of him with Nehru.

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=56048

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=81188

CDfm

I have forgotten a lot about the partition of India.This article is by Professor Lucy Chester on the Radcliffe Line the Indo-Pakistani boundary goes thru the history of Indian partition and regions and the Radcliffe Boundary Commission chaired by Sir Cyril Radcliffe in London - a lawyer who had never been to India.

My favourite anecdote from it is

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times] A colleague famously told him, "Dickie, you’re so crooked that if you swallowed a nail you’d **** a corkscrew!" Mountbatten’s biographer records that this was "a remark which Mountbatten remembered and repeated, though characteristically changing the recipient of the insult.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]25[/FONT]

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_01-03/chester_partition/chester_partition.html

Its an international relations piece rather than history and it is fairly good on methodoligy.

MarchDub

The Indian scholar/intellectual Ramachandra Guha in his book India After Ghandi addressed the issue of the British Colonial influence on Muslim/Hindu relations and how keeping them at each other’s throats - and initiating alienating policies - served the Colonial order:

Finally it is also true that the British did welcome and further the animosities between Hindus and Muslims. In March 1925, by which time the anti-colonial struggle had assumed a genuinely popular dimension, the secretary of state wrote to the Viceroy: ‘I have always placed my highest and most permanent hopes on the eternity of the Communal Situation’. In England the growth of liberal values placed a premium on the sovereignty of the individual but in the colonies the individual was always seen as subordinate to the community. This was seen in government employment where care was taken to balance Muslim and Hindu jobs; and in Politics where the British introduced communal electorates where Muslims always voted for Muslims. Most British were predisposed to prefer Muslims where, as compared to Hindus, their forms of worship and way of life were not entirely alien. Overall colonial policy deepened religious divisions which helped to consolidate the white man’s rule.

And as for all the BS that surrounds the narrative on Mountbatten, Guha writes:

After Mountbatten left India he worked hard to present the best possible version of his tenure as Viceroy. He commissioned or influenced an array books that sought to magnify his success and gloss over his failures. These books present an impression of Mountbatten as a wise umpire, successfully mediating between squabbling schoolboys; whether India and Pakistan, The Congress and the Muslim League, Mahatma Gandhi and M.A. Jinnah, or Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel. Mountbatten’s claims are taken at face value: sometimes absurdly as with the suggestion that Nehru would not have included Patel in his cabinet had it not been for Mountbatten’s recommendation.

CDfm

The deal for Indian support in WWII was independence was it not. It (Britain) had not been in a position to prevent independence during WWII if India had taken the initiative.

The British had declared war on Germany on behalf of India.

As Chester puts it.

However, Radcliffe was not as unbiased, nor as ignorant, as the Indian leaders assumed. On the contrary, his wartime experience as director-general of the British Ministry of Information, along with his sound Establishment background, left him intimately familiar with the goals and interests of His Majesty’s Government. There is no evidence that Radcliffe was biased against Hindus, Muslims, or Sikhs, but he was certainly biased in favor of preserving British interests. As far as its undeclared political ends were concerned, then, the Radcliffe Commission was well arranged. Unfortunately, the forces that shaped the commission to fulfill political needs also prevented it from following well-established boundary-making procedures.

And the demographics


[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]Years later, Mountbatten offered this curious appraisal of Radcliffe’s reasoning: "I’ll tell you something ghastly. The reasons behind his award weren’t very deep-seated at all. I am quite certain they were based on some rule of thumb about the proportion of population."[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]23[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times] Given the fact the Mountbatten’s government gave Radcliffe the mandate to focus on religious demographics, it seems odd that the former Viceroy thought it "ghastly" that Radcliffe had not come up with "deeper" reasons for drawing his lines. Mountbatten’s sentiment may indicate an awareness among British officials that the categories they themselves had set up were inadequate for the job at hand.[/FONT]

These demographics were historic and out of the control of the British as indeed were the local conflicts.

It does seem that Britain simply had to go along with it and the decisions were out of their hands except to give legitimacy to the new regimes.

That is not saying Mountbatten did anything wrong and as the Kings cousin he probably went down well with the raja's and rulers.

MarchDub

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that it was all down to lack of experience in handing things back in general.

LOL - Yeah, thieves have this problem. Taking stuff is always a lot easier than giving it all back...Which is why we have police, laws and a court system - to help them out.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

LOL - Yeah, thieves have this problem. Taking stuff is always a lot easier than giving it all back...Which is why we have police, laws and a court system - to help them out.

Giving back an occupied territory is not a common occurence, even nowadays. Perhaps in recent history it has begun to be the fashionable thing, i.e. liberation. Whether a territory is taken over by wartime victory or colonialism the question of just handing it over to the people who live there has only been made in the last 100 years AFAIK (open to correction on that).