flashleg8 wrote:I usually bow to your knowledge of history Guiscard, but I disagree slightly here.
Yes its true the British granted India independence for a number of reasons (as with every decision) but I would have thought Ghandi's involvement was one of the major factors. He was popular with the Liberal movement in Britain due to his non violent protest and his educated British manor and critics found it hard to argue against the moral high ground he assumed. He united Indian independence movements in a way that no other leader had before. Granted the Indian independence has to be seen in a geopolitical context (as the empire generally was dissolved).
As for the mutiny you mentioned - I thought that actually strengthened the imperialists rule. It acted as a bogyman for years after that allowed the Raj to use stricter control methods and fuel for the arguments of imperialists that India would descend into violence and civil war if the British left.
Oh I'm not trying to devalue Gandhi's contribution in the least, but modern Indian historiography (post subaltern) is tending to highlight the fact that there was
never really any proper unity in the independence movement. In a country so massive, so diverse and so religiously divided no one man at any point could be said to represent the ideals of a nation. It was a claim which came more from the Gandhian faction than from a reflection of reality. His involvement was one of the major factors, but violent resistance was also a significant contributor. You are spot on with the mutiny, but my point was that many within India did, and still do, see it as the first war of independence, the start of the violent uprising which led to independence. Hindu nationalism had a long history of terrorism almost in the modern model. They blew a lot of things up and killed a lot of people. Then we get to partition, which was (arguably) something pushed for by the Muslims and eventually accepted by Congress and the British (to cut of the diseased limb, so to speak). That was an inherent part of Indian independence, something which came from elements of the Indian independence movement not from the British. It was always going to lead to bloodshed, obviously encouraged by our haphazard drawing up of the border, but my point still stands. Violence was inherent in the Indian independence movement. Gandhi must be applauded for his amazing work, and his noble and successful attempts at peaceful revolution, but revolution it was not, nor peaceful.
