For those of who went to school before the internet came along, textbooks were the main source of knowledge about India's freedom struggle and independence. We were squarely taught that Gandhi's non-violent movement got us freedom from the British. A casual google search shows we are now at the other end of the spectrum. So many opinions and theories about the freedom struggle. And that is good, though one has to sift through a lot. Why did the British leave India? What were the main reasons? Which do you consider was the most important reason? Why has Gandhi's role in it been exaggerated? Modi wasn't born until 1950. So he was definitely not responsible. Getting that out of the way already. .
I liked this blog's take on the question: Why did the British ACTUALLY leave India? - Destination Infinity - Economic Losses (Britain could not continue making profits out of India after WW II) - Religious Conflicts (the British saw the religious conflicts as an administrative nightmare) - What the Indian soldiers did in 1945-47 But a comment under that blog summed it up nicely: "... the British had nothing more to loot from India and take to their country. And, therefore, keeping India became a burden on their economy. So they gave independence."
Bhagat Singh: Jailed, tortured & hanged. Veer Savarkar: Jailed & tortured for life. Aurobindo: Exiled. Subhas Chandra Bose: Thrown out of the country. Lala Lajpat Rai: Beaten to death. Chandra Shekhar Azad: Beaten to death. But, Gandhi: Royal treatment in jail. Nehru: Wrote books in jail. And what do schools teach? "Gandhi & Nehru brought freedom to India"
There are numerous reasons on why the british left india. On which reason was paramount, each person might have their own answer. I will stay away from that as according to me it is not useful. What was Gandhi's role. Gandhi left a legacy on leading the Indian war of Independence against the british. Gandhi taught that even in the 19th century the age old lessons of non-violence can be taught to millions of people and be applied. Normally when there is violence, two things happen. One, the soldiers come back after the war, they don't know their place in the society and end up in a depressed life or worse cause harm to themselves or others. Two, when those who choose violence chase away their enemies, face conflict among themselves, choose the same method of violence to hurt one another. Here is where the Mahatma's teachings are profound. He taught something which can be applied by anyone and in any situation. While there might have been lot of individuals who benefitted from Gandhi's teachings, MLK and Mandela show us that in a larger scale. We all believe that it doesn't apply to me, but it does. Make no mistake, it is a skill to apply the principles of non-violence and non-alignment and win. Gandhi was a very smart man who knew what to do and when to do. According to me a lot of people would benefit taking Gandhi's teachings seriously. By his own admission, Gandhi could have been a flawed, I wouldn't know, I know his teachings are not flawed. He deserves a place in history amongst the others who made vital difference to the human race.
Why did Gandhi, the preacher of non violence recruit Indians to fight for the British in WW 2. Even Afghanistan got independence in 1919. YES. I'd say Gandhi definitely the Independence till about the end of WW-II when the so called British Empire was at its weakest. Had things been in Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Ashfaqullah Khan, Ramprasad Bismill's hands, we would've got independence after the 1st World-War itself, i.e. around 1919-20, when the Brits were badly hit by Russians and others. Had there been a mass (VIOLENT) protest of the British regime earlier, around the time Gandhi came back from S.Africa, British would have not stood their ground for very long. Take an example of the Revolt of 1857, when Mangal Pandey was the 1st Martyr of the war. After the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre, British were really scared and hence they elevated Gandhi as leader of Congress in 1921 (Congress was anyway British creation itself). British nurtured Gandhi as a mass leader with "non-violence" so that Indians followed him and would never revolt. The British created an environment where any serious revolt would be punished (that's why Bhagat Singh and others were eliminated), but whenever Gandhi used non-violent method, they would bow down to him, giving an impression to gullible masses that non-violence is very powerful and Gandhi is effective leader. So, automatically, everyone started following Gandhi because he was the only leader who could get the work done with his so called "non-violence". This way, the British were able to manage the whole freedom movement with Gandhi & Nehru as their obedient servants (agents) Gandhi would preach about non-violence, and at the same time he recruited lakhs of Indian soldiers for World Wars on behalf of Britain. So, not only was he effective in suppressing revolt, to keep the British safe, but also he was effective in recruiting Indian soldiers on behalf of British.
Sardar Patel got the maximum votes for the prime Minister post, Nehru 0. Still Gandhi asked Patel to step down and made Nehru the 1st prime minister of independent India. So much for MAHATMA Gandhi , the Truthful person Let's not even get into his personal side, where he made his neices It's all their in his book.
Imagine tens of thousands of sathyagrahis clad only in a piece of cloth gatecrashing buckingham palace and gheroing the Queen and the Prime Minister Winston Churchill . I hazard a guess . There was this plan. Britishers visualised the aftereffect of such a scene and this strategic plan leaked out that eventually propelled or and impelled the Britishers to leave The bharat.
