Independence special: Which group, individual or political faction was majorly responsible for the freedom of the Indian subcontinent?

[The Bald Eagle]

Greetings of Independence to people from South Asia who achieved it our great endeavors from different political parties and pressure groups but the main question is which group, individual or political party was chiefly responsible for the independence of Indian subcontinent


Was it the Azad Hind Army, All India Congress, All India Muslim League, prevailing events like WW2 which heralded the people of subcontinent to an era of freedom? Please share your thoughts below.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Poll added Guys!

 

[Bhaijaan]

This is a controversial topic that has been discussed in the past many times on this forum also and you mentioned some of the contributing factors and entities (there are more) and they all played their part. To argue about who played the bigger part and whose part was a very small contribution is a discussion i wouldn’t want to be part of as I get nothing from it.

What is more interesting for me is to study how the different entities ‘handled’ the whole transition phase and what directions the leaders of independent Bharat, Pakistan took their respective countries on which eventually laid the foundation for the counties they have become today.

I give due credit to all contributors in the independence movement and I believe Bharat’s independence movement was one of the greatest political campaigns ever in the history of oppressed nations. We had a lot of remarkable men at that time. People may have different political associations and ideologies but truth be told Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, Bose, Patel etc were all phenomenal men at that time. Their collective leadership gave enormous strength, validity to our cause.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The prevailing circumstances of WW2, followed by Azad Hind Fauj.
Everything else is purely narrative created for political benefit.

Sri Lanka and Burma also got independence in 1948. Followed by Malaysia, Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda etc etc.

But every ruling class of a country loves to have some story to tell, and for india the story is that gandhi won them independence, using his spinning wheel, walking stick and dhoti.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

This is a controversial topic that has been discussed in the past many times on this forum also and you mentioned some of the contributing factors and entities (there are more) and they all played their part. To argue about who played the bigger part and whose part was a very small contribution is a discussion i wouldn’t want to be part of as I get nothing from it.

What is more interesting for me is to study how the different entities ‘handled’ the whole transition phase and what directions the leaders of independent Bharat, Pakistan took their respective countries on which eventually laid the foundation for the counties they have become today.

I give due credit to all contributors in the independence movement and I believe Bharat’s independence movement was one of the greatest political campaigns ever in the history of oppressed nations. We had a lot of remarkable men at that time. People may have different political associations and ideologies but truth be told Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, Bose, Patel etc were all phenomenal men at that time. Their collective leadership gave enormous strength, validity to our cause.

Bose and Jinnah were standout leaders for both the countries.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Q-e-A won the creation of Pakistan, that is purely to his credit. But nothing to do with ending of British rule. That was happening anyway.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

The prevailing circumstances of WW2, followed by Azad Hind Fauj.

Yep that is true but to say Gandhi had no role is also a fallacy.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Let me tell you, as a Pakistani, I believe Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League were the real heroes who got us freedom from British rule. Jinnah Sahab's leadership and vision were amazing, and he fought tirelessly for Muslim rights in India. He knew we needed our own country, and he made it happen.

And you know what? The British were already under pressure because of World War 2. They were weakened, and that's when Jinnah Sahab struck a deal with them. He negotiated with the British and the Indian National Congress, and that's how we got Pakistan on August 14, 1947.

The Lahore Resolution of 1940 was a turning point. It's when the Muslim League demanded a separate state for Muslims. And Jinnah Sahab's leadership, combined with the sacrifices of millions of Muslims, made our country's freedom a reality.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yep that is true but to say Gandhi had no role is also a fallacy.

Mohandas played a major role, in helping the British rule.

1. He was awarded Kaiser-e-Hind by the British in 1915.
2. He did a recruitment campaign asking Indians to fight for the British in both world wars.
3. He supported the British in South Africa during Boer War and Zulu Rebellion.
4. In his letters to the British, he stated that he wanted to inculcate among Indians, the loyalty towards the British. he called himself obedient servant of the British. He wrote that no other Indian has co-operated with the British, more than himself.
5. His participation in Round Table Conference was to find self rule, as dominion status, under British control.
6. He pulled back the non co-operation movement (which was not for independence, but for self rule) when the movement got aggressive.

Mohandas HELPED the British rule. He had ZERO role in India getting independence.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Let me tell you, as a Pakistani, I believe Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League were the real heroes who got us freedom from British rule. Jinnah Sahab's leadership and vision were amazing, and he fought tirelessly for Muslim rights in India. He knew we needed our own country, and he made it happen.

And you know what? The British were already under pressure because of World War 2. They were weakened, and that's when Jinnah Sahab struck a deal with them. He negotiated with the British and the Indian National Congress, and that's how we got Pakistan on August 14, 1947.

The Lahore Resolution of 1940 was a turning point. It's when the Muslim League demanded a separate state for Muslims. And Jinnah Sahab's leadership, combined with the sacrifices of millions of Muslims, made our country's freedom a reality.

Q-e-A had no role in ending the British rule.

His role was in securing a homeland for the muslims. The British were so least interested and in a hurry to leave, that they left people on their own, and allowed the mass killings during the partition.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Mohandas played a major role, in helping the British rule.

1. He was awarded Kaiser-e-Hind by the British in 1915.
2. He did a recruitment campaign asking Indians to fight for the British in both world wars.
3. He supported the British in South Africa during Boer War and Zulu Rebellion.
4. In his letters to the British, he stated that he wanted to inculcate among Indians, the loyalty towards the British. he called himself obedient servant of the British. He wrote that no other Indian has co-operated with the British, more than himself.
5. His participation in Round Table Conference was to find self rule, as dominion status, under British control.
6. He pulled back the non co-operation movement (which was not for independence, but for self rule) when the movement got aggressive.

Mohandas HELPED the British rule. He had ZERO role in India getting independence.

Savarkar also help British to urge people to get inducted into the British army. Also I never thought you guys had such low perception of Mr Gandhi.

Even a Pakistani won't grade him so low.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Savarkar also help British to urge people to get inducted into the British army. Also I never thought you guys had such low perception of Mr Gandhi.

Even a Pakistani won't grade him so low.

I am stating facts about Mohandas. I don't represent Indians. Many indians (brainwashed) still see mohandas as someone who won them freedom, lol.

Savarkar asked Indian Hindus to enlist in the army during World War 2. But that was strategic, as he himself said that he wanted Hindus to learn to be soldiers, so that when time comes they can fight for a hindu country. It was not out of any loyalty to the British. The British reserved their worst punishment for Savarkar, while Mohandas enjoyed detentions with facilities.

Savarkar wanted a Hindu country, like Q-e-A wanted a Muslim homeland. Q-e-A won in his mission and became a hero, and rightly so. Savarkar lost and he couldn't become the hero.

 

[Rajdeep]

Adolf Hitler is responsible for Indian independence. Had Hitler not started WW2, Britain would not have gone to the war and spend millions. Britain almost went bankrupt post WW2 and couldnt sustain a colony 5000 miles away in India. Hence they left. I am not saying India would not have been independent by now but at that time in 1947 they only left due to the war.

All the British Asians & Blacks we see today, most of their forefathers went to England after the war to build the country back as cheap labour.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Adolf Hitler is responsible for Indian independence. Had Hitler not started WW2, Britain would not have to spend so much in war. Britain almost went bankrupt post WW2 and couldnt sustain a colony 5000 miles away in India. Hence they left. I am not saying India would not have been independent by now but at that time in 1947 they only left due to the war.

Lol...you mean all hail hitler

 

[CricketCartoons]

Lol...you mean all hail hitler

I think Indian subcontinent would have been better had the British ruled for 50 more years. After the second World War, there was strong domestic pressure for human rights, and the British had defeated Nazis and wanted to usher in a free world. They had also signed a charter with USA that they will recognize the rights of people for self rule. So British left when they had become really good and were not the colonizers of the past (even then their crime was mostly economic crime).

If only the British had ruled the subcontinent for 50 more years. Maybe not Pakistan, if they wanted to be ruled by muslims only, but I strongly believe, India would have been much better with 50 years of British rule, than the congress rule we got.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

I think Indian subcontinent would have been better had the British ruled for 50 more years. After the second World War, there was strong domestic pressure for human rights, and the British had defeated Nazis and wanted to usher in a free world. They had also signed a charter with USA that they will recognize the rights of people for self rule. So British left when they had become really good and were not the colonizers of the past (even then their crime was mostly economic crime).

If only the British had ruled the subcontinent for 50 more years. Maybe not Pakistan, if they wanted to be ruled by muslims only, but I strongly believe, India would have been much better with 50 years of British rule, than the congress rule we got.

Thanks to Mr Jinnah, he carved out Pakistan from an unthinkable position the way he handled cabinet mission plan was a shock for both British and AINC. But then British backed down from their commitments and Mr Jinnah keep on amping up the pressure until the day of Independence.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Thanks to Mr Jinnah, he carved out Pakistan from an unthinkable position the way he handled cabinet mission plan was a shock for both British and AINC. But then British backed down from their commitments and Mr Jinnah keep on amping up the pressure until the day of Independence.

The British already supported muslim representation, when they brought the communal Award in 1932, much before Q-e-A's demand for separate homeland. So it was not like the British were made to do something they didn't want.

They wanted to leave the sub continent. They didn't care enough, that even Sir Radcliffe, who drew the partition boundary, had NEVER stepped in India. They didn't care for the riots that followed. It was all in a hurry.

Q-e-A credit is that he won a muslim homeland despite opposition from Mohandas. British never opposed the demand for Pakistan. They had introduced Muslim representation much earlier.

 

[Rajdeep]

Lol...you mean all hail hitler

Looks like we have developed some sort of pattern here where you come up daily with these one liners due to lack of proper rebuttal.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Looks like we have developed some sort of pattern here where you come up daily with these one liners due to lack of proper rebuttal.

Not sure what rebuttal you were expecting.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Salute to all the heroes who paved the way.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Adolf Hitler is responsible for Indian independence. Had Hitler not started WW2, Britain would not have gone to the war and spend millions. Britain almost went bankrupt post WW2 and couldnt sustain a colony 5000 miles away in India. Hence they left. I am not saying India would not have been independent by now but at that time in 1947 they only left due to the war.

All the British Asians & Blacks we see today, most of their forefathers went to England after the war to build the country back as cheap labour.

I heard that 87,000 Indian soldiers died during WW2, and 3 million civilians died as a direct result. If Britain only left due to the war, they at least got their money's worth in cannon fodder.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

J.L.Nehru played a great role in Purna Swaraj resolution back then​

====

When India decided to celebrate January 26 as Independence Day​

In a defining chapter of India’s freedom struggle, Lahore took centre stage in 1929 as a symbol of revolutionary passion. It was here that the Indian National Congress (INC) made a bold declaration for Purna Swaraj, or complete independence. This crucial moment in the history of the freedom struggle underscored Lahore's vital role in India’s quest for freedom and ignited a powerful sense of hope and determination among the people.

At the Indian National Congress session in Lahore in 1929, India designated January 26 as the date for celebrating Independence Day, referred to as 'Purna Swaraj Diwas'. This choice was made to mark the nation's resolve to achieve full independence, and the date was commemorated annually until India secured its official independence.

This significant event, held on the banks of the Ravi River, an ancient witness to both epic battles and literary milestones, marked a turning point in India's quest for sovereignty.

Source: India Today

 

[CricketCartoons]

J.L.Nehru played a great role in Purna Swaraj resolution back then​

====

When India decided to celebrate January 26 as Independence Day​

In a defining chapter of India’s freedom struggle, Lahore took centre stage in 1929 as a symbol of revolutionary passion. It was here that the Indian National Congress (INC) made a bold declaration for Purna Swaraj, or complete independence. This crucial moment in the history of the freedom struggle underscored Lahore's vital role in India’s quest for freedom and ignited a powerful sense of hope and determination among the people.

At the Indian National Congress session in Lahore in 1929, India designated January 26 as the date for celebrating Independence Day, referred to as 'Purna Swaraj Diwas'. This choice was made to mark the nation's resolve to achieve full independence, and the date was commemorated annually until India secured its official independence.

This significant event, held on the banks of the Ravi River, an ancient witness to both epic battles and literary milestones, marked a turning point in India's quest for sovereignty.

Source: India Today

LOL and LOL again.

This may be a "crucial moment in history" for the congress, but they were the last ones to demand full independence. Many were asking for it many years ago, and Mohandas Ghandi kept opposing them.

1. Surat Split in congress happened in 1907 when one group didn't like Ghandi's method of petition and negotiation to demand dominion status.
2. Bhagat Singh had been asking for complete overthrow of the British a decade ago.
3. Ghadar party in 1913 was asking for complete overthrow of the British.

Ghandi's congress labelled all of them as radicals and extemists (they were speaking the language of the british) and finally when the tide had turned, they were the LAST ones to demand full independence and took claim and credit for it, as if they were the ones who first wanted independence and they were the ones who fought and earned it.

Ghandi supported the British like no other leader. It is a SHAME that some people think he is father or whatever of the country.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I think Indian subcontinent would have been better had the British ruled for 50 more years. After the second World War, there was strong domestic pressure for human rights, and the British had defeated Nazis and wanted to usher in a free world. They had also signed a charter with USA that they will recognize the rights of people for self rule. So British left when they had become really good and were not the colonizers of the past (even then their crime was mostly economic crime).

If only the British had ruled the subcontinent for 50 more years. Maybe not Pakistan, if they wanted to be ruled by muslims only, but I strongly believe, India would have been much better with 50 years of British rule, than the congress rule we got.

I have one question.
You prefer the British had stayed on for 50-70 more years, as per you it would have been better for our people.

Then you allege, Gandhi ji was pro British and did not demand for complete independence.

So, could it be possible that Gandhi ji were also the thinking what you are thinking.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I have one question.
You prefer the British had stayed on for 50-70 more years, as per you it would have been better for our people.

Then you allege, Gandhi ji was pro British and did not demand for complete independence.

So, could it be possible that Gandhi ji were also the thinking what you are thinking.

I liked the post world war 2 British. Mohandas liked the British when they were doing all sort of crimes.

 

[Bhaijaan]

I liked the post world war 2 British. Mohandas liked the British when they were doing all sort of crimes.

The world war era was very unpredictable. For new nations to decide on their political ideologies and relationships moving forward was a complex decision and was still a matter of throwing a dice literally.

There are interesting takes on what alternate realities. Where would Bose have taken Bharat if the Nazis or Japanese were able to turn their attention to Bharat, the answers to such questions aren’t very clear either.

I think Congress did a lot of things right as well. The pace of development and complacency wrt our military capabilities is my complaint as well. We lost a lot of time but i think we are still not a hopeless case.

Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru were all very much British Bharatiyas. They weren’t really your regular local politicians of today. It’s understandable they preferred to negotiate with the British rather than throw them out by force.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I liked the post world war 2 British. Mohandas liked the British when they were doing all sort of crimes.

You mean the one which couldn’t feed itself and living on hand outs from US?

 

[DeadlyVenom]

There was a combined Indo Pak independence event in my city yesterday. Weird right but it's one of those things in mixed community.

Anyway they had one guy who was like Gandhi's double. He came in the clothes too and had same style. Basically he was a Gandhi look alike.

I was in awe being in the presence of this copy, I wonder how I would have felt in front of the real Mahatma.

 

[Bhaijaan]

There was a combined Indo Pak independence event in my city yesterday. Weird right but it's one of those things in mixed community.

Anyway they had one guy who was like Gandhi's double. He came in the clothes too and had same style. Basically he was a Gandhi look alike.

I was in awe being in the presence of this copy, I wonder how I would have felt in front of the real Mahatma.

An odd character, a unique character , a remarkable guy.

I can see why Gandhi ji has haters. He made a legacy out of annoying people with his stubbornness.

He’s hated by an average Bharatiya for being soft towards Muslim. But muslims also don’t have any special place for him in their hearts.

If he really was a British loyalist his kids should have been billionaires today but that’s also not true.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

An odd character, a unique character , a remarkable guy.

I can see why Gandhi ji has haters. He made a legacy out of annoying people with his stubbornness.

He’s hated by an average Bharatiya for being soft towards Muslim. But muslims also don’t have any special place for him in their hearts.

If he really was a British loyalist his kids should have been billionaires today but that’s also not true.

Many Indians 70 years after Independence became wolverines and felt like they could have done XYZ better than people who fought in the struggle.

Gandhi may have been flawed but he was sincere to his people and his people were all the people of Indian.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Many Indians 70 years after Independence became wolverines and felt like they could have done XYZ better than people who fought in the struggle.

Gandhi may have been flawed but he was sincere to his people and his people were all the people of Indian.

Which is why it almost doesn’t matter to me now what anyone thinks of leaders in 1940s.

We live in 2024 now and we must plan for the next decades.

The world is changing rapidly and people who are still stuck in the past cannot take themselves or their nations ahead.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

An odd character, a unique character , a remarkable guy.

I can see why Gandhi ji has haters. He made a legacy out of annoying people with his stubbornness.

He’s hated by an average Bharatiya for being soft towards Muslim. But muslims also don’t have any special place for him in their hearts.

If he really was a British loyalist his kids should have been billionaires today but that’s also not true.

BJP has sown the seeds of hatred against him just to downplay role of Congress in Independence. Although they venerate Vallabhai so much despite being from Congress to demean Nehru. And ironically now a guy like Savarkar is greater in sights of many as compared to Mr Gandhi

 

[CricketCartoons]

There was a combined Indo Pak independence event in my city yesterday. Weird right but it's one of those things in mixed community.

Anyway they had one guy who was like Gandhi's double. He came in the clothes too and had same style. Basically he was a Gandhi look alike.

I was in awe being in the presence of this copy, I wonder how I would have felt in front of the real Mahatma.

You mean he was wearing dhoti only? Gandhi started wearing that at the age of 52. Till then he would wear like the british. Suddenly at the age of 52 he got "enlifghtment". I always wonder why suddenly at the age of 52 that he was moved by poverty and started wearing less.

He was from a rich family of diwaan, who had good relations with the british. So for a rich person to wear like a poor is a matter of privilege. Ambedkar on the other hand always wore 3 piece suit, and he told the poor that they never had anything to wear, so if they can, they should wear suit.

Ambedkars wearing of suit was revolutionary than gandhi shedding his clothes.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You mean the one which couldn’t feed itself and living on hand outs from US?

If that was the criteria, I would like the British when it was at the height of its power, not when it had turned a corner in its colonialization and was moving towards human rights.

 

[CricketCartoons]

BJP has sown the seeds of hatred against him just to downplay role of Congress in Independence. Although they venerate Vallabhai so much despite being from Congress to demean Nehru. And ironically now a guy like Savarkar is greater in sights of many as compared to Mr Gandhi

Why don't you disprove with facts what I mentioned about gandhi helping British?

Facts only.

 

[rpant_gabba]

If that was the criteria, I would like the British when it was at the height of its power, not when it had turned a corner in its colonialization and was moving towards human rights.

looks like you are a bit confused there cartoons. can't figure which side you are going to troll today?

you said you like post WWII british

peak power british you have to go to pre wwi.

British have been USA's little poodle for most of 20th century

 

[CricketCartoons]

Growing up in Bengal, under communist rule (BJP was not heard of and non existent in Bengal), after coming back from the local school (run by anglo indians), there was a bust of gandhi made of some white stone. It was a ritual that when passing by that statue, we would test our aim, each of us selecting a small stone from the ground and taking turns hurling the stones, challenging ourselves to hit gandhi's head.

As a result, he was left with no nose, broken spectacles and holes all over his face. That is my most satisfying image of this man.

 

[CricketCartoons]

looks like you are a bit confused there cartoons. can't figure which side you are going to troll today?

you said you like post WWII british

peak power british you have to go to pre wwi.

British have been USA's little poodle for most of 20th century

It is Sunday, I have run 10 km already, so maybe the brain is deprived of oxygen.

But my point was that my liking for British is NOT because of their power. So your criteria is IRRELEVANT and does not apply to me. If that was the criteria, I would like the British when their empire was at peak. So it does not matter whether they are poodle of US or struggling. That is IRRELEVANT.

My liking for British is because the page they turned after world war, when they started accepting peoples right to self determination and for human rights.

Hope you did not run 10k and that is messing up with your comprehension.

 

[rpant_gabba]

It is Sunday, I have run 10 km already, so maybe the brain is deprived of oxygen.

But my point was that my liking for British is NOT because of their power. So your criteria is IRRELEVANT and does not apply to me. If that was the criteria, I would like the British when their empire was at peak. So it does not matter whether they are poodle of US or struggling. That is IRRELEVANT.

My liking for British is because the page they turned after world war, when they started accepting peoples right to self determination and for human rights.

Hope you did not run 10k and that is messing up with your comprehension.

Which one?

after WW1 they didn't turn a page.

After WW2, they didn't have the resources and Uncle Sam was not keen on britain having an empire

It was more like the page was turned for them

 

[CricketCartoons]

Which one?

after WW1 they didn't turn a page.

After WW2, they didn't have the resources and Uncle Sam was not keen on britain having an empire

It was more like the page was turned for them

They signed the Atlantic Charter during the world war 2.

 

[Champ_Pal]

WW2 is the reason. India was going to get it’s independence irrespective of Gandhi or Nehru or Jinnah.

One thing is for sure. Gandhi stole the entire show and freedom narrative.

 

[BouncerGuy]

There are many personalities and parties involved here. Mostly I think INC and AIML were the main parties who made it possible in the end.

Bhagat Singh is another individual who is well known for this.

 

[Itachi]

Usual posters twisting narratives to stir the pot so that more views can come to this thread.

If one talks about greatest contributor of independence of Indian sub continent, then it will be Congress.

Jinnah didn't have any contribution since his attention towards the end was more in the separation of Pakistan from rest of India. India would have had been independent regardless the role played by jinnah (his role can be ignored in this aspect). What jinnah made difference was whether it'll be a one country or two country.

The seeds and nourishment was provided by Congress to create pressure and systematically changing rules.

WWII didn't bring independence in one day.

Neither did Congress.

But both played crucial role in power dynamics from where independence was possible.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

You mean he was wearing dhoti only? Gandhi started wearing that at the age of 52. Till then he would wear like the british. Suddenly at the age of 52 he got "enlifghtment". I always wonder why suddenly at the age of 52 that he was moved by poverty and started wearing less.

He was from a rich family of diwaan, who had good relations with the british. So for a rich person to wear like a poor is a matter of privilege. Ambedkar on the other hand always wore 3 piece suit, and he told the poor that they never had anything to wear, so if they can, they should wear suit.

Ambedkars wearing of suit was revolutionary than gandhi shedding his clothes.

Yeah he was wearing Dhoti.

I think he ( the real Gandhi) wore it as a bit of a costume. The symbolism was powerful.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yeah he was wearing Dhoti.

I think he ( the real Gandhi) wore it as a bit of a costume. The symbolism was powerful.

Celibacy was not just a duty for the dedicated few. It was enjoined on all who would truly serve their country. ‘A man who is unchaste loses stamina, becomes emasculated and cowardly. He whose mind is given over to animal passions is not capable of any great effort’. If a married couple gratified these, it was still ‘an animal indulgence’ that ‘except for perpetuating the race, is strictly prohibited’. At the height of political mobilization, in 1920, even conjugal union was impermissible – all Indians must forego sexual relations, as ‘a temporary necessity in the present stage of national evolution’.Complete continence – brahmacharya – was of such transcendent importance that an involuntary ejaculation at the age of sixty-five was matter for an anguished public communiqué. At seventy-seven, testing himself by sleeping nude with his great-niece, he wrote: ‘even if only one brahmachari of my conception comes into being, the world will be redeemed’. If his conception were to be universally adopted, the logical result would be ‘not extinction of the human species, but the transference of it to a higher plane.

This man needed psychiatric help.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Why are we discussing Gandi's dress instead of the real topic??

Stay on topic or do not derail the thread anymore.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Why are we discussing Gandi's dress instead of the real topic??

Stay on topic or do not derail the thread anymore.

You are right. Gandhi needs a separate thread. I will stop only discussions on him not relevant to this thread.

 

[BouncerGuy]

You are right. Gandhi needs a separate thread. I will stop only discussions on him not relevant to this thread.

Thanks for understanding.

 

[arunp]

My liking for British is because the page they turned after world war, when they started accepting peoples right to self determination and for human rights.

India was a loss making enterprise for the British pre ww2. They did not have the economic wherewithal to hold on to India. Not sure how you came to conclusion.

 

[KB]

The imperial view of Britain’s exit from India was that it was the natural fulfilment of British stewardship. The contrary Indian nationalist perspective was that it was the toil of the Congress led Indian nationalist movement, which drove Britain out.

On the former, it is clear that it was British interests and not altruism that really mattered. Concessions to Indian nationalists before 1947 were not part of an ultimate plan to hand power over, but mechanisms to retain control. Britain may have liked to present independence as a natural culmination of their guardianship, but that was a retrospectively self-satisfied projection.

Equally, however, the nationalist movement - though very important - was never a sufficient force in itself to dislodge the colonial overlords. Interestingly the example of Ceylon’s independence in 1948 also shows that mass nationalism was not necessarily the only route to independence. This is not to deny that the nationalist movement was an important factor in India gaining independence. A movement sustained over many years did unsettle the moral foundations of colonial rule. With important exceptions, by the late 1930s, the Congress was seen as an ‘alternative Raj’ by many Indians. To a large extent because of the nationalist movement, after the war the cost of clinging to its Indian empire would have required a significant reinforcement of British forces.

But other factors were important too. The steady erosion of India’s economic worth to Britain; the idea after the war that British strategic interests could be served better by India being a Commonwealth partner rather than a colony; the deterioration of the administrative ‘steel framework’ (partly because of the nationalist struggle); the communal conflict and the desire to avoid being caught up in it; and the impact of the second World War which enfeebled the British economy, and resulted in Britain being for the first time in debt to India, were all factors in the ultimate departure from India in 1947.

As a note in conclusion, it is also important to stress that 1947 represented, to use the official terminology, a transfer of power. This was not a revolution. As such historians have more generally pointed to the continuities across the 1947 'divide' between imperial and independent India for instance in the ethos and structure of government. Imperial 'endings' greatly affected what was to come after the moment of independence.

Some - mainly but not exclusively on the left - have criticised the Congress for being too conservative and lacking revolutionary fire. But the flip side was that the ‘struggle-truce-struggle’ strategy meant that, even before independence, the Congress could experience government and had time to build up into a party with secure funding, broad networks, roots in society and legitimacy amongst a critical mass of the population. The strength of the Congress in 1947 was a significant contribution to the establishment and relative stability of Indian democracy and compared favourably with the experience of many other parties in other countries following decolonisation.

 

[Bhaijaan]

BJP has sown the seeds of hatred against him just to downplay role of Congress in Independence. Although they venerate Vallabhai so much despite being from Congress to demean Nehru. And ironically now a guy like Savarkar is greater in sights of many as compared to Mr Gandhi

I used to get into serious debates on these issues back in the day but now since few years i have lost interest in this because we must focus on the present and on the future.

It’s a fact that Congress has milked the independence movement and heroes to project itself as a legendary political party for decades. They need to reinvent themselves and I consider the diminishing value of their historic leaders as a karma for them being complacent.

The only legacy that matters to me is that of Bharat. We are the descendants of Mahabharat and we must restore our past glory.

 

[nuttyprof]

BJP has sown the seeds of hatred against him just to downplay role of Congress in Independence. Although they venerate Vallabhai so much despite being from Congress to demean Nehru. And ironically now a guy like Savarkar is greater in sights of many as compared to Mr Gandhi

There was always a distrust of Gandhi. Infact his star was on the down, when he was assassinated. He was lionized by his assassination. Just because people are free to assert their opinions now, thanks to internet, you are assigning blame to BJP.

 

[Bhaijaan]

The biggest reason why Gandhiji isn’t popular in modern day Bharat is because his philosophy of passive resistance, non violence does not relate with the young and hot blooded masses of today. They see him as weak and unnecessarily soft towards muslims. I grew up hearing a lot that our country needs an aggressive dictator. Hitler is very popular among adolescents in Bharat.