How The British Lost India

[apetley]

Visit (multiple entry) 2 years

5,250.00

Visit (multiple entry) 5 years

6,600.00

Settlement in UK

19,500.00

These are visa costs just taken from BKK British Embassy website. My wife had to pay 18900 Bht last year for her settlement visa.

Luckily she passed! I have heard of others who have paid and been refused, in my opinion just a money making exercise.

[Axel]

Settlement in UK THB19,500.00 seems to be a bargain, compared to

approval of a residence permit in Thailand (payable on receipt of residence book)

Baht 191,400, although you only pay once it is granted.

[maerim]

Know that,But I like to pull a chain or two when the answer is so obvious that anyone that has ever got past Alley Op in the funnies knows the correct answer,But it appears that MAYRIM THE MOUTH never made it that far.

Another gem from the education forum.

Keep em coming Kev, I am really looking forward to your history of the world book.

Probably make the encyclopaedia Brittanica obsolete, still not to worry who cares about facts?

Bit like wiping you ass on a hoop really. Do you have copyright on that piece of poetry or can anyone use it?

[regpye]

37,000 baht for an Australian Spouse Visa application, plus 8,500 baht medical.

No guarantees to get it or not - no refunds.

[DogNo1]

It is true that America supported the French when they reasserted colonial control of Vietnam at the end of World War II. It is not true that Truman simply abandoned Ho Chi Minh. There were three important factors that led to America's stance: 1. The British who were in charge in Vietnam at the end of WW II handed control back to the French and left. 2. Truman needed to appease DeGaulle to gain his cooperation in Europe. 3. Ho Chi Minh was suspected of having communist leanings. There was some talk of preferring Vietnam to be an independent country, but instead of making the tough decision to support Vietnam's independence the decision was made to go along with the French. Too bad. It turned out that Ho Chi Minh was much more a nationalist than a communist.

[KevinN]

But it is also true that when De Gaulle asked then president Eisenhower/VP Nixon,for logistic support for his troops at Dhin Bhin Phu N. Viet Nam ,Ike said OK, but never sent the materials that the French had requested and as such,was the last stand of the FFL with a loss of 8000 troopers in that battle., and caused a rift in French/American relations to this day.

But it is true that America wanted self rule under a democratic form of gov't. and did turn their backs on Uncle Ho.

But they have also turned their backs on Gen. Chiang Kai in Taiwan in favor of mainland China to a certain extent too.

I was young at that time,but that is the way I remember it.

[DogNo1]

You are correct, the American support for the French troops was kind of like a Southeast Asian Bay of Pigs. I think that the Americans got into supporting an independent regime in Vietnam after the partitioning of the country in 1954 when the Catholics in the north fled to the south. As you probably remember, the Catholic monk who had studied in America, Ngo Dinh Diem, took charge of the new government of South Vietnam. I recently stayed in the Continental Hotel on the square in Saigon where is it said that Edward Lansdale developed the plot to have Diem overthrown. Ah, history! There is now a giant statue of Ho Chi Minh that overlooks the square and it is brightly lit 24 hours a day.

[KevinN]

Our education correspondent writes

subcontinent are from Pakistan and Bangladesh and not India.

The people given the cartridges were Muslims and not Hindus, the stuff in question was pork fat and not beef suet and the incident didn't happen anyway in the Indian mutiny of 1857 it was just a rumour.

The British handed over the reins of government in 1947, not bad only 90 years out

It's a spot on analysis absolutely, a delight to read, keep up the good work.

Looking forward to your new book "KevinN's history of the world part 1"

I am still trying to find out what a "Brit consular centre is" any clues?

Cartridges - folk-myth about the Indian Mutiny. New cartridges introduced into a new rifle required to have the wrapping opened - easiest way was to bite off the end. Agitators in the army (and outside) told the Muslims that the cartridge was coated in pig fat, told the Hindus it was coated in beef fat. But this was only one of many episodes that built up to the Indian Mutiny. The indians were revolting anyway - a few sparks set the kindling ablaze

A Brit consular center could be anywhere that consular services are provided,such as embassys and consulates or other consular offices.

[KevinN]

ermooney;I liked Viet Nam and the people of the south treated me good ane were friendly,cept they would steal anything,lost a lot of 27 jewel seiko's,but then so did everyone else.

I haven't been back since I left in 70 except I was engineer on a freighter that layed in Da Nang for a month with a load of sack cement from Taiwan in 72,but just hung around the ship and the waterfront.

I have been giving a lot of thought to maybe going back to look things over,but I would want to go back upcountry aways,Tuy Hoa, Song Cao, a place we called Miami Beach and maybe up to Pleicu, around that part of the country, not to sure what the NVA would think of me now,but others have been back and say that they had fine treatment.

Maybe go one of these days,,maybe wait til my wife retires in 4 years and we go for a few months.

[DogNo1]

I think you would find the people welcoming. A great number of the population are young and have no memory of the war. It's a bit chaotic - everyone can afford a motorbike now and their tourist industry is not very developed as yet, but the trip would probably be worth it to see what has become of the places you used to be. I was at Cu Chi for a year and visited the government-operated "Tunnels of Cu Chi" site. BTW, I recommend the Omni Hotel in Saigon for the best accomodations and service. It's out toward the airport, but the hotels in the center of the city are just too expensive. If you go back, hope you have an interesting and enjoyable trip.

[maerim]

Maybe go one of these days,,maybe wait til my wife retires in 4 years and we go for a few months.

Don't forget to take plenty of guns and ammunition when you do decide to go back to 'Nam, you never know you might just meet a few who have long memories.

Agent Orange is always appreciated by the natives,instead of chocolate bars so stock up on that.

The effects are much more long lasting than cheap gifts, some poor non combatants are still suffering through it.

Have fun, yeee haaa.

[KevinN]

[maerim]

At last a sensible post.

[Aikido]

thats not very nice saying indians are revolting!

[mbkudu]

The British didn't lose India. A dreadful little Prime Minister called Major Attlee and a pansy Viceroy named Mountbatten (alias Louis of Battenberg) gave the place away.

There was no India before the British put togher a vast collection of tribal states with the remenants of the former Mugal Empire. For over 200 years the British ruled the place properly and put it firmly on the road to prosperity. From what I saw on a recent visit, although there is a growing middle class, most Indians would have been better off under the benevolent Raj.

To go historically deeper; the <deleted> that is taught to American school children

that, 'Christopher Columbus thought he had landed in India, so he called them Indians,' is truly just that, <deleted>. In 1492 there was no nation or territory called

'India.' There was a place called Hindustan however. In Latin 'Los Indios,' means,

'God's People.'

[snoophound]

37,000 baht for an Australian Spouse Visa application, plus 8,500 baht medical.

No guarantees to get it or not - no refunds.

That truly sucks

Nearly 50k baht for arrogant condescending service that gives no gaurantees.

Only govt can get away with things like this.

[snoophound]

Remind me why anyone would want india?

[fatter than harry]

Remind me why anyone would want india?

Because Sweetest Mango lives there.

[Up2U]

thats not very nice saying indians are revolting!

Someone noticed!!

[Martin]

To Guesthouse: I am glad it wasn’t the Consulate Section, who raised your hackles. I have always found Consulate to be very polite and helpful. They seem to be very efficient and effective in routine matters.

My only ‘grinding of my teeth’ occurs when I have to fork over the enormous charges for a routine piece of paper, like their letter that says there is nothing against me on their computer and that I have shown them that I receive GBPxxx per month of pension. But that isn’t the fault of Embassy staff.

It would appear that the FCO pricing policy is to recoup a lot of overheads by adding an enormous mark-up on the marginal cost of producing that piece of paper. I will try to get someone to get it across to the Foreign Secretary that this may make sense to the Treasury, but is actually “Penny Wise, Pound Foolish”, as we say in Yorkshire.

Even we very lowly and completely-unofficial ‘ambassadors’ do a lot of harm to UK interests if there are a multitude of us bad-mouthing our own Diplomatic Service

.

I have never had to seek Consular’s assistance on a non-routine matter, and I hope I never have reason to have to do so, because I know that, as far as Bangkok is concerned, the FCO has “sent a platoon, where a regiment is needed”. I quote from a Vice-Consul last year:

“In an ideal world, we would have an Honorary Consul in each province with a series of Correspondents and wardens supporting them but we are not in an ideal world. I have to try with limited resources to cover an unknown resident population, over 700,000 British visitors to Thailand every year, over 30 British nationals in long term detention, and average of 20 arrests per month, over 150 deaths per year, 300+ hospitalisations every year and a myriad of other cases. There are only six officers covering this workload, two of us from the UK and the rest are locally engaged. I believe the staff here do a very good job in the circumstances but we do need help on only the most difficult of occasions from our resident population.

As Head of Consular Section, it is my responsibility to make sure we have adequate and appropriate consular coverage around the country. I am very aware that this is not the case at the moment and I am in the early stages of assessing the situation so your comments have been very useful. “

The other times that I have had to apply to the Embassy have been when we wanted a visa for my wife to visit UK with me for a holiday. On the first occasion I thought I had made the application very thoroughly in accordance with the Embassy’s Notes of Guidance, and had all the supporting documentation with me. But my application got very short shrift from the ‘front counter’ officer. However, the way that this was done did raise the possibility that there was a ‘system-design’ failure, resulting in ‘maladministration’. When, sorrowfully, (because going through the ‘maladministration’ process towards the Parliamentary Ombudsman is a very time-consuming matter), I informed the Head of Visa Section that maladministration appeared to be occurring, he very efficiently and effectively looked into the circumstances, and all was speedily and pleasantly resolved.

When, the next year, my postal application for a repeat of that visa appeared to be being misunderstood and repeatedly put on ‘hold’, a fax to him resulted in the jam unjamming.

I have heard it said that the Visa Section is almost inundated with ‘try on’ applications from Thai women, whose circumstances do not make it sensible for Britain to admit them. So I wonder if there is an overload situation occurring down there, which twice resulted in a perfectly genuine, above-board application not flowing smoothly through the pipeline.

As I said before, this is a good year to look very carefully at the mismatch between the respected reputation that His Excellency would, no doubt, like his Embassy to have amongst British visitors and expatriate-workers and retirees in Thailand, and the largely-negative one that it has acquired.

To Mr Helper: the 83 pages is not, repeat not, ‘drivel’.

I will answer at length when I have a bit of time.

There is much that I regret about the ‘mandarins’ and political advisers who will have had input to those pages, but ‘drivellers’ they are not. And we do ourselves no service if we underestimate them.

They are professionals with formidable amounts of ‘intellectual horsepower’.

Which it behoves us to recognize; whilst also recognizing the grain of truth in GBS’s jest: “Every profession is a conspiracy against a laity".

[Up2U]

“In an ideal world, we would have an Honorary Consul in each province with a series of Correspondents and wardens supporting them but we are not in an ideal world. I have to try with limited resources to cover an unknown resident population, over 700,000 British visitors to Thailand every year, over 30 British nationals in long term detention, and average of 20 arrests per month, over 150 deaths per year, 300+ hospitalisations every year and a myriad of other cases. There are only six officers covering this workload, two of us from the UK and the rest are locally engaged.

.................

But my application got very short shrift from the ‘front counter’ officer. However, the way that this was done did raise the possibility that there was a ‘system-design’ failure, resulting in ‘maladministration’. When, sorrowfully, (because going through the ‘maladministration’ process towards the Parliamentary Ombudsman is a very time-consuming matter), I informed the Head of Visa Section that maladministration appeared to be occurring, he very efficiently and effectively looked into the circumstances, and all was speedily and pleasantly resolved.

Two points out of your long (and interesting) post.

I do not know of a 'warden' organisation in Thailand. Having acted as warden in several Middle Eastern countries, I found that it was a comfort to expatriate workers that there was someone whose face they knew that they could turn to for advice and assistance, however unofficial and amateurish such help may have been.

But this system only seems to be supported in countries where there are risks of warfare or civil unrest.

Secondly, many of the complaints that I have heard, and twice experienced myself, are those involving face-to-face encounters at the BKK Consulate. The staff on the windows and behind the interview doors seem to be trying to find reasons not to issue visas / certification / what-have-you, rather than trying to help their fellow-countrymen and those wishing to visit UK. They present a very hostile image of what Britain is like. I have not met this attitude in any of the many Consulates and Embassies that I have had to deal with in the past thirty-odd years. This seems to be unique to this one building. Why is it tolerated through several changes of top personnel?

[KevinN]

The British didn't lose India. A dreadful little Prime Minister called Major Attlee  and a pansy Viceroy named Mountbatten (alias Louis of Battenberg) gave the place away.

There was no India before the British put togher a vast collection of tribal states with the remenants of the former  Mugal Empire. For over 200 years the British ruled the place properly and put it firmly on the road to prosperity. From what I saw on a recent visit, although there is a growing middle class, most Indians would have been better off under the benevolent Raj.

To go historically deeper; the <deleted> that is taught to American school children

that, 'Christopher Columbus thought he had landed in India, so he called them Indians,' is truly just that, <deleted>. In 1492 there was no nation or territory called

'India.' There was a place called Hindustan however. In Latin 'Los Indios,' means,

'God's People.'

Why did they call the indians in south america indians then?,,do you suppose that the europeans called the people in hindustan indians? Wherre did the word come from. you got me wondering now.

[wolf5370]

Military victories, and even economic domination, only conquer a country. It is not won till the hearts and minds of its citizens accept the conqueror

Poppy-cock. Most govenrments don't have the 'hearts and minds' of the people. A country is 'won' when its is no longer in self governance, but is governd by the 'dominator' (for want of a better word). It may be short lived and over-thrown, or it may go on for so long that the people loose their original identity as a citizen of the previous state.

No empirialist nation had made friends with the locals; it defied the point. England, Spain, Russia, Portugal, America, etc 'took' added countruies to their empires to use the land (America with Texas), the people (all the above) and the resources. Not to get more citizens - after all there was no income tax then, so what would be the benefit. Industrialisation; worldwide organisations, treaties and laws; libralisation; media; class erosion; etc all put pay to the viability of empires.

There is hardly an inhabitated country in the world that has not been conquered at some time; most of europe by the Saxons (the Normans that conquored England (Angleland) bin 1066 were Saxon's - normandy had been conquored by the Saxons just a few years previously).

Britain lost India (and the other colonies - the Americas, Australia etc) due to bad governance.

Fighting European wars streatched thin the reserves and over taxing America to pay for it led to the inevitable (also aided by the fact that George was completely bonkers, the French war machine lending a big hand to the "Americans" and the large contingent of Irish immigrants that were none to i9mpressed with England's governance of Ireland at the time).

In India it was simply too expensive following the wars. It was hard to justify, impossible to defend/police and the world had changed significantly to make it less of a propersition going forward.

[maerim]

(also aided by the fact that George was completely bonkers,

The film, "The madness of King George" will tell you about what illness he had.

As he was known as King George 111 the film makers had to call it the movie "The madness of King George" as our American movie goers would want to know where was the first movie King George 1 and the sequal, King George the 11?

[Martin]

You can, if you wish, define 'won' such that Iraq has now been 'won' by the Despicables United from the Despicable Saddam. To me, it is merely 'occupied'. To me, it is not till the hearts and minds of the populace no longer contemplate chucking out the occupiers, by force or mass disobedience, that victory can be said to be complete.

By my definition, the Saxons finally won what is now England, Scotland, and Wales. It took a long time, a lot of struggles, and a fair bit of emigration, but is now complete. And emigration was quite a factor in siphoning off potential opponents. The Saxons found that some Celtic hearts and minds would never be won over. They were relieved of the presence of a significant number when many of the survivors of the cruelties of the worst type of Anglo-Saxons in the Highland Clearances managed to flee to America. I am indebted to Edd of this Forum for telling me that, there, Francis Allinson "had a conspicuous role in educating the American mind to the thought of independence from England". In 1977, when I first came to Esarn, the thought of independence from England (particularly from its winters and its prices) recommended itself to my mind!.

We will probably go on disagreeing about the definition of 'won', but we agree on your last point. Most of the British had realised (though they didn't openly admit it) that India was a huge nett drain on their resources, and so Attlee had a mandate from the electorate to get the British out of India. In perspective, India was an almost-unmitigated disaster for Britain. If Britain had put the resources (particularly brainpower) into Manufacturing Industry that it poured into India, Britain would have had a far stronger economy, and might well have remained a Great Power much longer. Certainly the ordinary folk could have been a darned sight better off.

[Richard W]

There is hardly an inhabitated country in the world that has not been conquered at some time; most of europe by the Saxons (the Normans that conquored England (Angleland) in 1066 were Saxons - Normandy had been conquored by the Saxons just a few years previously).

Normandy had been conquered by Danes, not Saxons! The Danes had been in Normandy long enough to switch from Norse to the local form of French. Norman means 'Northern man', i.e. Dane in this case.

It is true that most of Western Europe was conquered at some stage by Germanic tribes, to be precise most of the Western Roman Empire from Carlisle to Carthage. (The Normans were French-speaking by the time they conquered Sicily.) I'm not sure how extensive the foray giving rise to Russia was, but this kingdom very rapidly went native.

A much more impressive example is the Mongol Empire - China to Iran, with a brief excussion into Hungary.

[maerim]

the Mongol Empire

In these politically correct days should it not be the Downe syndrome empire?

[Richard W]

Why did they call the indians in south america indians then?,,do you suppose that the europeans called the people in hindustan indians? Wherre did the word come from. you got me wondering now.

Pre-Classical Latin (Plautus) India, from Classical Greek Indos 'Indian' from Persian Hind- from Sindh-, 'Sindh, Indus'.