What if Japan invades India by sea in 1942?

[Panzerkampfwagen]

The 4+ million civilian fatalities in Japanese occupied areas as listed at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Would tend to confirm that the Japanese occupation of India was unlikely to be as benevolent as the British one was.

If Deportations, Economic exploitations, Murder, Racial abuse, Cultural unacceptability and over criticism of non existent Indian customs, Religious divide are what you would call benevolent , then I don't think there would be much of a difference between what the Japs would likely do than what was being done in India under the British Raj.

If after so many years, we are able to accept revisionist policies that break the "myths" of Battle of Britain, German superiority and quality of armoured equipment in the early war years and so on, I think this too should be one of them.

[LWD]

The 4+ million civilian fatalities in Japanese occupied areas as listed at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Would tend to confirm that the Japanese occupation of India was unlikely to be as benevolent as the British one was.

If Deportations, Economic exploitations, Murder, Racial abuse, Cultural unacceptability and over criticism of non existent Indian customs, Religious divide are what you would call benevolent

Well you are only looking at half the coin. The British also brought a fair amount of good with them. A couple of your items are rather off the mark as well. Murder for instance wasn't part of the British occupation plan that I'm aware of. Some of the Culural unacceptability issues likewise would have been positive rather than negative for most Indians (lessoning and indeed trying to eliminate the caste system for instance).

... then I don't think there would be much of a difference between what the Japs would likely do than what was being done in India under the British Raj.

Then I suggest you take a look at areas like China, Indonesia, and Korea to see what Japanese occupation could be like.

If after so many years, we are able to accept revisionist policies that break the "myths" of Battle of Britain, German superiority and quality of armoured equipment in the early war years and so on, I think this too should be one of them.

What "myths" are you refering to? The British certainly weren't angels but they tended to quite a bit more benevolent than the Japanese except for a very few special cases.

[Panzerkampfwagen]

I have seen this justification in some form everywhere. It is essentially a quantifying justification in some form, which tends to say that there are far more cruel regimes citing millions of deaths( like the Nazis or the Japs or Stalin's regimefor e.g) than how the British have been. So, in that sense, the British seem fair and good enough.

Well, if the British were so very benevolent, why would frequent uprisings happen in most of their colonies ( not just India) and why would the people need to be repressed down by force, i wonder? The revolutionaries would then be hung , simply for being nationalistic and wanting to free their country, although, it is not to be considered hypocritical why that logic is counter applied when they encourage partisan activity using the SOE during the 2nd world war. The 1857 rebellion was instigated merely by the contemptuous attitude of the British towards Indian custom, or worse, a purposeful religious divide amongst the people. If what General Dyer did at Jallian Wala Bagh was not murder, what was it then? What about the ruthless gunning down of tribals folk in Africa? Was that not murder?

Most of the Western historians cite the Atlantic Charter as being the symbol of democracy and the original charter itself states that its aim is that all countries should have their right to choose their own government. However, how many books that mention the charter as an example tell the second part of the story, that Churchill backtracked and said that it is not applicable to Britain's colonies? So, does this mean that only countries under German hegemony have a right to freedom and not the people of Britain's colonies?

I can debate on each of your view points, but in the end, nothing tends to change the hypocrisy and double standards, we victims of colonization have gone through.

I had a similar discussion a year back on a subject similar to this in the discussion of the Boer war crimes, but it just keeps getting repetitive over and over again, and tends to deviate away from the original topic. So, i shall stop with this.

[LWD]

I have seen this justification in some form everywhere. It is essentially a quantifying justification in some form, which tends to say that there are far more cruel regimes citing millions of deaths( like the Nazis or the Japs or Stalin's regimefor e.g) than how the British have been. So, in that sense, the British seem fair and good enough.

Well, if the British were so very benevolent, why would frequent uprisings happen in most of their colonies ( not just India) and why would the people need to be repressed down by force, i wonder?

You are so hung up on the issue you are not reading what has been stated. I didn't say that the British were benevolent on any absolute scale I said that they were more benevolent than the Japanese likly would have been.

The revolutionaries would then be hung , simply for being nationalistic and wanting to free their country,

This is a very one sided version of things though isn't it. They wouldn't even have been revolutionaries simply for "being nationalistic and wanting to free their country". To be a revolutionary they had to take action based on those ideas and in most cases it was for such actions that they would be punished.

The 1857 rebellion was instigated merely by the contemptuous attitude of the British towards Indian custom, or worse, a purposeful religious divide amongst the people.

From what I've read it was hardly that simple. Indeed at that point it wasn't really the British government that ran India now was it? Of course this is all irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I can debate on each of your view points, but in the end, nothing tends to change the hypocrisy and double standards, we victims of colonization have gone through.

If you can debate them do so. But please debate my view points and not the ones you seem to imagine that I have and try to stay on topic.