Get Even More Visitors To Your Blog, Upgrade To A Business Listing >>

The Indian Independence - If not for Mahatma Gandhi, would India still be under British rule?

People like me crossed this question number of time through our ears. Please find the general opinion below and welcome your opinions.

The principle named 'Non-violence' which followed by Gandhi is the one which earns the respect almost all over the world and this principle never failed anywhere wherever it followed. For example the persons who followed this principle and earned rewards: Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Aung San Suu Kyi and so on.

So there was a story I read regarding how Gandhi got this idea of Non-Violence. The famous Russian Novelist Leo Tolstoy had a habit of reading books in a variety of languages. He wrote a letter to Gandhi once. In that letter the Russian mentioned a couplet from Thirukural (The famous Tamil literacy). That couplet is

   இன்னா செய்தாரை ஒறுத்தல் அவர் நாண
   நன்னயம் செய்து விடல

The meaning of this couplet : If others harm you, do good to them, so that they are shamed into realizing their mistakes. This inspired him to follow the non-violence principle even during the violence happens around him. 

During this Indian Independence Movement, the number of people almost around 60 lakhs(6 million) lost their lives. During the partition of Pakistan from India, 2 lakhs(0.2 million) of people got killed again because of the happened violence. This is almost equivalent to the number of people killed by Hitler. So there is another saying that the Non-violence followed by Gandhi is one of the biggest violence  of human kind. So there are number of thoughts are flying here and there. Anyhow take an eye below which was shared by Mr. Balaji Viswanathan

Unlikely. But, it would be interesting to explore the alternate scenarios. 

 
 


Scenario 1: Continued colonialism
A lot of people say colonialism would have been gone anyway, based on 2012 hindsight. What is not stated is how much did India's independence movement helped put an end to colonialism.

One of the reasons Britain went atop world economic order is because of its colonies - mainly India. India served both as a source of raw materials & labor, and its main market. However, things started changing from 1920, when Gandhi stepped up efforts to starve Britain both of its raw materials and its market. Not coincidentally, Britain's fall from economic glory started from this period. Had India been supplicant like it was in 19th century, Britain might not have gone weak in the 1920s-40s and the post-War Britain might not have been so ready to put an end to colonialism.


 

Apart from weakening British economy, the efforts of Gandhi and other leaders shamed the institution of colonialism in the West. British people were appalled by their imperial overtures and openly came out to support Gandhi. Americans, all the way up to FDR were greatly appreciative of Gandhi and pressured British government into giving more powers to its Indian colony that would lead to an eventual independence. But, if India had been just fighting the way Bhagat Singh did, Western society would not have been so ashamed of what they did and global opinion might not have tipped the way towards putting an end to colonization.

Without Gandhi, the British Viceroys to India could have gotten away with the 19th century assumption that they were just "civilizing the barbarians". Gandhi showed them who the Barbarians were.

Scenario 2: Early Independence
Without Gandhi at its helm, India could have gone quite extremist & anarchic (like it did in 1947) and at some point Britain would have been forced to leave the "hell hole". The critical turning point could have been Chauri Chaura in 1922. That means we could have got independence around the time Afghans got theirs, and our fortunes might not have been any better.

Without Gandhi's unifying Congress force and the legendary leaders the force produced, there was little to hold Indians. The south, north, east and west had little in common at that point and we could have been facing some of the brutal tribal wars that Africa is facing now.

Scenario 3: Independence in 1947 with no leadership
This is a minor alteration of scenario 2 - where Britain would vacate India after the war. But, it still doesn't address the leadership "vacuum". For all their valor, India could not have been run by the extremists. The leadership vacuum would have sunk the nation in a civil war and lead to balkanization.

Without Gandhi, our region would have crashed on its weight. There is a reason why all our founding fathers from Patel, Nehru, Rajaji to even Netaji called Gandhi the Mahatma even when they disagreed with him. Think about it. When was the time before that when whole India was united on a single cause and when was the time after that when it happened? He completely pulled off a magic, that I'm still having a tough time to imagine.

Unity was always our Achilles heel, but behind Mahatma the Tamils, Gujjus, Biharis, Assamese, Bengalis, Maratis, Telugus and all other Indians walked to show that there is one India. When he talked, the world listened.

Mahatma might not be right with some of his tactics, but everyone knew that the freedom movement would have fallen apart without him.

For further detailed analysis, please get into this link . Hope you Enjoyed.



This post first appeared on The Feel Good Things Over The Internet, please read the originial post: here

Share the post

The Indian Independence - If not for Mahatma Gandhi, would India still be under British rule?

×

Subscribe to The Feel Good Things Over The Internet

Get updates delivered right to your inbox!

Thank you for your subscription

×