Hacker News Reader

Comment by SanjayMehta | Hacker News Reader

Aung San Suu Kyi was just another "compliant native" similar to those the British installed prior to leaving the colonies.

The roadmap was laid out by Cecil Rhodes in his letters and will and extensively documented in "The Secret Society" by Robin Brown.

It's quite fascinating to see their networks with the benefit of hindsight. For example, Mountbatten installed Nehru as the first unelected PM of India.

Aung San Suu Kyi was educated in New Delhi India and during that time, she lived in Nehru's home.

View on HN

Calling Nehru "installed" by Mountbatten misses the crucial context of the time. Nehru was the undisputed leader of the Indian National Congress, which had been the primary force behind the independence movement for decades and had overwhelming popular support. Mountbatten's appointment was more of a constitutional formality in the transfer of power, not an act of kingmaking. It's like saying the Chief Justice "installs" a newly elected president.

The same goes for the Aung San Suu Kyi connection. Labeling her a "compliant native" seems to ignore the 15 years she spent under house arrest actively fighting against a military junta. That's a pretty high price to pay for being a supposed puppet.

Patel won the Congress presidency in 1946 and was made to step aside by Gandhi. Nehru, if memory serves me right, won only one vote.

"House arrest" was reserved for compliant natives. Aga Khan's palace was another favoured location for the likes of Nehru and Gandhi.

Real freedom fighters, were sent to the Cellular Jail in the Andamans.

Why would the military keep a "compliant native" under house arrest though? Wouldn't it be better for them to get her killed?

Not if that might bring the anger of the Empire down on them in full. There's a reason even totalitarian regimes don't apply the same amount of force to all of their political enemies.

You're conflating two different things: she is a compliant native for the British, not for the military. She was always a thorn in their sides.

As for your murderous suggestion, that reveals more about your thought process than any thing else.

As for kingmaking, I suggest you read the letter exchanges between Gandhi and Motilal Nehru, available online in the Gandhi website.

They openly talk of their respective candidates being offered the "crown."

Was Sardar Patel or Maulana Azad taking their orders too?

Patel was under the thumb of Gandhi.

Gandhi is the one who made Patel step aside in favour of Nehru, despite the latter losing the April 1946 election for the role Congress president; the understanding with the British was that the President of the Congress would be the first PM.

Gandhi had a history of appeasement and compliance (see "The South African Gandhi" by Vahed and Desai) to the British, so Patel could be considered compromised indirectly. Personally I don't believe Patel was a stooge, just a victim of the personality cult around Gandhi.

As for "Azad" - real name Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin - I have not looked into his history.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com