Has Gandhi's Contribution To India's Independence Been Exaggerated???

Question

Many think that without Gandhi India would have still been a colony. An idea which I completely disagree with. In India the education system has a vociferously pro-left bias. It only teaches one part of history while completely ignoring the other part. That is why many Indians have a completely distorted and innacurate understanding of their own history. Any textbooks that are remotely critical of Gandhi or of the mughal oppressors (who were responsible for the largest genocide in the entire history of human civilisation - the murder of 100 million hindus across the tenure of mughal oppression) are not even permitted.

The leftists have brainwashed Indians with the belief that it was Gandhi's mobilisation of public support that caused the UK to reliquish India. However the real reason was that the UK had just come out of WW2 and it's economy was in tatters. The entire city of London lay burning in ruins and the UK could no longer afford to keep India even if it had wanted to.

Arif, India was always different from the other colonies. Africa was nothing to Britain...Whereas India was expensive to keep. After WW2 they were having to actually pay money to India. They could not afford to do that. If you read primary british documents from whitehall (which i have as part of my history degree) seldom does the name gandi even surface in the debate on whether or not to grant india independence. India's independence was something that britain was compelled to do for its own survival. Gandhi, or shall I say gandha, was just a scapegoat who allowed the british to keep face.

Answer 1

ABSOLUTELY,gandhiji was a weird guy,yu saw GANDHI MY FATHER MOVIE,IT SEEMS GANDHIJI TOLD HIS SON NOT TO MARRY CAUSE MARRIAGE AND SEX IS A SIN,THATS WEIRD AND LAUGHABLE,I THINK IF IT WASNT FOR HITLER AND THE WORLD WAR WE WUD HAVE NEVER BECOME INDEPENDENT.

Answer 2

My own personal take on it is that Gandhi had little influence on anything Britain did, but had a lot of influence on the sense of self-worth of Indians. It is always hard to say how much difference that sort of thing makes. Maybe if there had been no Gandhi, India would have been less ready and able to face independence, and would have fallen apart worse (than the India-Pakistan split) if Gandhi had not been there.

It is so tempting to write revisionist history, but the result is not likely to be any closer to the true truth than the original "tainted" history. Humans are terribly incapable of understanding the historical equivalent of chaos theory.

Answer 3

Agreed that "the UK had just come out of WW2 and it's economy was in tatters. The entire city of London lay burning in ruins and the UK could no longer afford to keep India even if it had wanted to". But still the Britishers would not have given us independence on a silver platter. We all know UK held on to many of its colonies right upto as late as late 70s.
Gandhiji provided the mass movement which forced UK to give up their hold over India.
Even his biggest critics agree with his methods may be they differed with his idealogy but his method was unique and fantastic. Otherwise we had leaders like Sadar Patel and Pandit Nehru who wanted control over India even if it was a divided India.
Only a biased man will doubt Gandhiji's contribution in achieving Indian Independence

Answer 4

You are partly right and partly wrong.
It is a fact that
1) Indian history scripting is largly influenced by Leftists.
2) If we look at todays India, there is hardly any leader who can claim mass following in hundreds. Even in the absence of elecronic media, what ever Gandhiji said, was followed by almost entire imly simly by entire nation.
3) There were multiple factors responsible for indipendance of India, and Gandhi was one. WW2 was another factor.

Answer 5

No movement of that size can ever be carried out entirely by one person and one could even argue that it was going to happen sooner or later anyway, but it seems to me at least that it is indisputable that he had the biggest impact.

India's independence could have been achieved without him but it would have most probably been later and with much more bloodshed. He didn't do it alone and he had good timing but I think that he is rightfully considered a hero.

P.S. - Sometimes we forget that even our heroes are humans too and we have to forgive their faults. I'm not saying he was pefect but he certainly was better than most and sacrificed a lot for his people.

It is completely unfair to saddle him with being the cause of the religious wars, he actually did as much as he could to prevent religious partisanship, and it broke his heart whenever violence erupted. Religious zealots will have their blood despite the efforts of the best of us...

Answer 6

Gandhi worked as an English lawyer, moved to South Africa, dabbled in wierd Theosophical spiritualism, had odd sexual practices and ensured the partition of India which caused mass murder between hindus and muslims. So, obviously a national hero to be proud of!
Your analysis is correct.

Answer 7

at our work places, when our bosses exert the slightest pressure our true character comes out.

the pressure on gandhi during the independence movement is something beyond our normal comphrehension. his ideas may seem laughable. but remember our ideas of TODAY will be laughed at by the people of tommorrow.

there were many factors which contributed to our nation's freedom. but the single largest factor was gandhi - take it or leave it.
if you don't beleive me, try taking on your boss at your workplace and you will get the answer in a month's time.

the accusations about leftists is a different story which has nothing to do with gandhi. gandhi did not ask them to brainwash people. in fact, what he wanted the congress to do was simply ignored by his staunch followers - disbanding the congress party.

Answer 8

Maybe India would have become independent without Gandhi's involvement but it would have been a much more
bloody process. He created a non-violent form of civil
disobedience which inspired civil rights movements throughout the world. That is fact,not exaggeration.

Answer 9

Thanks SHAWEZ !
YOUR IDEA WORKED! THIS GUY BLOCKED ME ON ONE VERSION OF THIS QUESTION SO I CAME ON THIS ONE.
SO, ASKER,
why are you sounding jealous or hurt with gandhiji's fame. infact i think you have a different issue with him. You have a problem with gandhiji because he praised prophet muhammad(p.b.u.h) and you somehow want to start criticising him so that it helps you in your ulteriror motive. You are sexist, a male chauvinistic jerk, a pathetic mockery of indians, leave alone hindus, you are not a true indian, and remove that crap from your profile which reads 'I AM HINDUISM PERSONIFIED" If you have any time left go and check the way you are made fun of in the women's gender issues section. And before you put any pressure on your empty head, go ahead and report abuse this answer as I will celebrate that you read these lines. Coooooooool........ click here and read what women think about you http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ajm0TrMtDY2FMScqo6LXBeHwHwx.;_ylv=3?qid=20071115084451AAOtCFP

Answer 10

Yes. I completely agree. You need to learn about the BAD things that happened too. China is doing the same thing with Mao.