As to the slaughter of Indians by the British, I have to ask Tom to look at the record
before beign too enthusiastic about British manners. As to Gandhi's assassination,
he was killed after the events unfloded so that pistol is irrelevant. As I view things
(this is of course controversial), the British succeded in neutralizing leadership,
crushing popular revolts, etc. and despite that did leave India. This raises
interesting questions and is relevant to the issue of what is to be done. What I
conclude is notably a)that there are limits to comparisons between struggle
against imperialism and struggle against capitalism, one beign apparently less
staunchly defended than the other b)protests, chaos, etc. can scare oppressors
into backing down eventhough they could go on and commit genocide.
There are weapons of mass destructions. If we really believe that
capitalists/industrialists are ready to use them then it all comes down to who
controls these weapons and mass movements don't matter.
As to the minor point of the role of the Japanese, I am not competent to talk about
the opinions of the masses but lots of political figures incl. Gandhi did indeed see
them as saviours (not benevolent saviours of course but the ennemy of my
ennemy is my friend). The most notable example of this is of course the leftist and
ex-INC president S.C. Bose who led the Indian National Army which was part of the
Japanese army.
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
