Would Gandhi have been just as successful in leading India's fight for independence if India had not been unde

Question

British rule ?
If india had been under German or Portugese rule would the have tolerated a figure like Gandhi to openly challenge their power ? Or would they have arrested and excecuted him at the first sight of trouble.
The objective of this question idsto determine exactly how much of a role the essentialy liberal attitudes of british administration played in shaping Indua's fight for independence .

Answer 1

There is a very good Science Fiction story about just this subject. I have a link to the Wikipedia entry on it below.

Basicly you are right, under any of the other 20th Century Empires (Nazi, Soviet, Maoist) he would simply have been shot or sent to a labor camp. Look how the Nazis treated Detrich Bonhoffer, or look at how the Maoists murdered the Tibetan Monks after their invasion of Tibet.

So yes, Ghandi used the liberal attitudes of the British Empire against itself.

Answer 2

The idea that the British Colonial administration was liberal is wrong -- it was far from it. British colonial authorities were notorious for treating natives as less-than-equal, if not downright savages. Look at how Britain treated the aborigines of Australia, the blacks of South Africa, etc. They were no more liberal toward Indians, nor were they liberal in their attitude towards Gandhi.

The only reasons British authorities didn't arrest and imprison Gandhi was because he was 1) from a fairly well-respected and monied family, and 2) he had become too popular a figure to be so treated.

Would the German, Portuguese, or other colonial nation have treated him differently? Probably, but it would have depended on what other problems that particular administration was facing at the time. Gandhi's fight for independence began after World War I and lasted into World War II, meaning Britain didn't really have the resources to put up too much of a fight. Other colonial nations may have been less forgiving of his actions, but then again his actions would most likely have been different as well.

Answer 3

Letting Gandhi have his way had its benefits for the British. They did not fear a military uprising and Gandhi actually did them a favor by controlling Subash Chandra Bose. A non-violent struggle would be easier and less expensive to handle considering the fact that the British forces were heavily outnumbered and too pressed with their activities everywhere in the world. I dont think liberal attitude was what let Gandhi continue, rather shrewd strategic thinking. Its most likely that Germans or the Portugese would have done the same.

What china does to tibeteans is different, China has superiority in numbers and resources. They can suppress a small armed uprising, but the British could not have in colonial India if all of India has stood up.

Answer 4

I think that in the end you can't stop people from rebelling. Perhaps the Germans or the Portugese would not have done anything about him because they would have probably underestimated his influence at first and later they would have feared angering the masses. I think that Gandhi like all heroic figures came out in the right place at the right time and that led to his success.

Answer 5

Well there was posibility if wasnot for british Gandhi may have been treated differently but donot forget that could have given birth to many more Gandhis is India and around the world.

Answer 6

Gandhi wouldn't have lasted five seconds against the Germans or against the Japanese (better example than Portugese because they were the power threatening to invade India and Gandhi's activities were hampering its defence).
He said the Jews should all present their throats to the Nazis in order to retain the moral advantage!

Answer 7

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi led India to freedom was really a miracle...especially considering it in the present situation..... indeed.
I would say it was not because of the liberal aspects of the British, but it was a mistake of the British in assessing the power of Gandhi....he was not carrying any guns......and ammunition's.....!!! yet he led India towards independence through non-violence.....only Gandhi can do that...no one else.

Answer 8

No, Britishers gave Gandhi a lot liberty in India, which he couldn't get when he was young and was in South Africa. Gandhi when joined other freedom fighters for Independence. At that age young freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh, Chandershekhar Azad were killed by Britishers. Gandhi though was brave fighting for the country he was given a good finance by country's enemies. Like G.D Birla. Gandhi took a lot of help from them likely, Britishers dare not take any stern action against him even when he was arrested.
Thus Gandhi was prime person to take Britishers priviledge. Britishers were against crime and Gandhi was against killing so Britishers can't take any action against him under law.

Answer 9

Mahathma Gandhi, was diplomatic. He knew how to tackle the rulers and when.
Britishiers used his charishma whenever they wanted. They got so many Indians to recruit in their army due to Mah Gandhi, promising him freedom after the 11 w war.
Britishiers also knew that if Mahathma Gandhi leaves or is shot out, the next leader will be worse than him.
His policy of Ahimsa, seemed acceptable to the British.
Still they closely watched him.

Answer 10

British themselves prosecuted a lot of Indian freedom fighters. They could not prosecute gandhiji was becasue they couldn't find a reason to do so. On what pretext could they arrest and execute him. he followed non-violence. He asked for reformation of people in India. he asked for freedom in bits. Started of with waiving of taxes on peasants, waiving of taxes on salt, etc. Gradually as number of his followers grew, he stood for freedom of the nation.

He showed the whole world how unjust British were. Executing him would have definitely brought in a major revolt throwing the British government into major economical crisis. They couldn't do anything but meet gandhiji's demands. had any other country ruled over India, they would have met the same fate.

No matter what level of attrocities they induce upon a nation, they have to be prepared for the worst reaction. gandhiji's execution would have initiated such a reaction.

And if you think british were liberal, donot forget the way they executed other freedom fighters in the country. They believed that this man, who follows non-violence is meek against their power. They could subside him any moment. By the time they realized his power, it was too late. They feared the violent activists more and hence kept executing them. Off course, nobody could have dreamt about non-violence as a weapon against power.

All the best...

:-)