There is an entrenched belief among many Indians that the country got its independence from the Britishers because of the non violent, non cooperation movement led by M.K Gandhi. Many also believe that it was a combination of the “peaceful protest” led by Gandhi and the revolutionary forces led by the likes of Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad and Subhash Chandra Bose that paved the way for India’s freedom.
Before I ponder on the real factor that ended the “Raj” in the Indian subcontinent region, I would like to opine on how effective civil disobedience movement based on non violence can be. I do agree that Gandhi did played an instrumental role in unifying the country giving it a sense of identity and that his efforts focused on empowering the distraught peasants and promoted the religious pluralism but was it enough to free India from the shackles of British rule? Were his anti colonial measures potent enough to give that knockout blow to the powerful imperialist regime? I would argue they were not. Non violence can undoubtedly create civil disobedience in a society, but it is not impactful to an extent where it can cause a ruler to fret and run away.
Like his personality, Gandhi’s mechanism of protest was controversial too. He preached peace and “Satyagraha” to the world but launched a campaign to enlist Indians to join the British efforts during World War – I. He encouraged Indians to stop using the British clothes but was invited by the Britishers to attend the second round table conference in London. There is a famous picture of him posing with British ladies with a smile on his face. On one hand, the revolutionaries or the so called “terrorists” as the Britishers labeled them, were brutally tortured in the jails, Gandhi was given the “luxury” of writing his autobiography during the time he spent in jail. What kind of an agitation is that?
More than a foe, I think Gandhi was a confidante of the Britishers. If that would not be the case, why would the Britishers “invite” him and sit with him on the negotiating table? Did the Britishers had the same “soft corner”for Bhagat Singh or Bose. These people were a greater threat to the the empire than the non violent Gandhi. I do agree that there is a merit in the argument that since Gandhi exerted an influence on the Indian masses, it was a diplomatic strategy for the Britishers to negotiate with him. But was it an impossible task for the “cunning” and politically dexterous British officers to subdue him? I think it was not.
The rise of Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose and more importantly, the rise of communist ideology fostered by the Hindustan Republican Army posed a serious threat to the empire. The influence of Bhagat Singh on the youth of the country and the formation of Indian National army by Bose fueled nationalism in Indians. However, Britishers were extremely canny in their approach in handling Indians. The famous (or I would say notorious) “Divide and Conquer” method proved successful for them in segregating the Indian society. India, unfortunately has a history of producing its “Jaychand’s“. The British think tank was extremely apt in pitting Indians against Indians. For an empire as powerful and as shrewd as the the British empire, it was not impossible to crush the revolutionary movement.
The aforementioned factors did played a role in the Indian independence, but they were not suffice in sending the Britishers back home. I strongly believe that what really led the Britishers to “quit” India was World War – II and the impact it had in weaking the empire. To run and administer any region, especially a region as vast as the Indian subcontinent, a country requires massive resources. Let me draw a parallel with why the Nazis were not able to hold off the Allied invasion during D-Day in 1944. It is widely believed that had the Nazis not launched Operation Barbarossa, the allied army would still have been fighting the Nazis. A lot of Nazi army units got “chewed up” in the eastern front in the conflict with the Soviet forces that they could not maintain their hold on the western front.
World War – II dented the British economy gravely. Their foreign reserves dwindled and the Debt grew enormously. Adding to this quandary, the country lost approximately four hundred thousand soldiers in the war with many more injured. The country’s infrastructure was damaged and it took them several years to rebuild it. This depletion of resources was the primary reason that the empire lost its grip on its colonies, especially India. This, along with the growing internal pressure against colonialism, consequently ended their reign.
The notion that we “seized” the control back from the Britishers is falsified and not based on the complete analysis of the factors that resulted in our Independence.
Site Title 