Absolutely No!Because Every body wanted to fight with violence,not non-violence.And Gandhi only told the Indians to fight with non-violence and truth and if Gandhi would not be there then there would be no freedom.So,let`s once again remember him on 2nd of October that is Gandhi Jayanti.
2006-09-30 18:25:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by redrose 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I dont think that only gandhi was responsible for the freedom of India. This country had all the big heroes like Subhash Chander Bose, Chander shekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh and many more heroes who gave their lives for the freedom of our country. If we start writing the names of our heroes, I m sure the names we dont even remember and the names we never came to know will get their right full place in a very big book.
The only thing that would have changed is that this process would have taken a little more long time.
And about the partition , I believe if gandhi wouldn't have agreed of giving a seperate place for Muslims then this country wouldn't have been seperated into 3 countries instead of one.
2006-09-30 20:02:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Believer 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
India would have got their freedom without Gandhi but with more blood baths and after a much longer time..
Gandhi did play a very important role for India's independence!
2006-09-30 18:30:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by semi-truth 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
No without Gandhi's fight for the country, India would still be a british colony. Gandhi began the fight for his country and other politicians followed him. At that time, many were frightened by the British power but Gandhi had a dream without firm reach which he wanted to be a reality.
2006-09-30 18:26:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes i think without Gandhi even India would got the freedom. bcoz gandhi was not the only freedom fighter and even he was not the one who in initiate it. If Gandhi wouldn't be there then there would be someone else. But still u should not forget abt his sacrifice and determination towards or freedom.
2006-09-30 18:23:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Champion 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, but might have been a bit late.
Nehru insisted on the partition, as he was very much wanted to become the PM of this nation, let it be a truncated one. Gandhi was against the partition, but had to concede to the demand of Nehru.
2006-10-04 02:06:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by Electric 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
gandhi was a pro-british .With his cordial help only in first and second world war,british could stay in india so long.Otherwise Subhas and other anti-imperilist leaders would be able to end the british raj.Gandhi"s theory was non-violence and compromisation ;on the other hand subhas was against any compromisation with cruel ruler.Partition was due to greed of nehru for power favoured by his godfather gandhi.At that time ,a bold leadership [like BOSE] only could prevent partition.
2006-10-01 00:07:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
certain, it became inevitable that India would are starting to be autonomous from Britain. that by skill of no skill diminishes Mahatma Gandhi's greatness. someone would have more advantageous to steer India to freedom if Gandhi had no longer. the instantaneous became ripe for revolution and revolution became coming near near no count what. in spite of the indisputable fact that, Gandhi became a awesome strategist with an outstanding understanding of the British. Gandhi's success became no longer only triumphing the independence of India, in spite of the indisputable fact that the relative bloodlessness of the warfare. although many Indians were imprisoned, injured, or perhaps killed, as far as revolutions bypass it became distinctly non violent. evaluate it to the yank revolution hostile to the British. It became a massacre. Armies and navies clashed. cities were burned. Tens of thousands of British, French, and individuals were killed. historic previous is complete of serious adult adult males that led human beings to freedom by stress of fingers. There are only some who led human beings to freedom devoid of stress of fingers. That became Gandhi's genius. He led India to freedom devoid of warfare.
2016-11-25 19:56:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
sure....india could get freedom in the absence of gandhi.donot think gandhi as great......no partition would take place
2006-09-30 18:19:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by krishna 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
never..India wouldn't have got freedom through ahimsa or non-violence..there might have been large attcks..that would have been the reason for India's freedom...The partition issue wouldn't have arisen without India getting freedom.
hey are u an India fan or something if yes me too..i answered 3 of your questions..
Jai Hind!!
2006-10-03 22:22:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋