Gandhi’s Legacy
September 2nd, 2008 | Published in history, india | Tags: freedom, Gandhi, history, india, legacy | 19 Comments
I have often wondered about the effectiveness of Mahatma Gandhi’s role in securing India’s freedom. Was it Mahatma Gandhi and other freedom fighters’ struggle that secured India its freedom, or would sovereignty have been granted anyway? Of course, the high school history books would have none of this. They emphatically state that Gandhiji and others forced the Great British Empire into submission and gave us the free nation. But let’s not fool ourselves into lending authenticity to history books written under the heavy influence of caste and religion based politics. Lets take a closer look at what really happened. And lets not narrow our focus down to India, but look at world events are large.
For starts, I choose to dismiss the claim that if it hadn’t been for Gandhi and others, we wouldn’t have secured our freedom. Why? Because between 1940 to 1960 (or whereabouts) around 27 countries gained independence from the colonial power (source: wikipedia). Now that’s too large a number for it to be coincidental. There is definitely a pattern here, and pattern often follows causation. So what happened in the 30’s and 40’s that ended colonialism in such a dramatic fashion in over two dozen countries? Answer: World War II. The world war was such a severe strain and drain on the imperial forces that they could no longer had the economic, political, and military power to sustain the colonies. Consequently, they had to relent to the indigenous separatist movements, and at times even voluntarily give up on colonies (the latter happened with many countries in Africa; this explains why 30% of political boundaries in Africa are straight lines: because they were drawn on the map, not on the ground). Personally, I find this argument a lot more compelling that what the story that history books tell.
Natural question/accusation is: Does this diminish Gandhi’s legacy vis-a-vis free India? Ironically, I find myself saying ‘no’. The British may have given India its political identity, but it was Gandhi who gave India its cultural and social identity. His freedom movement gave people a sense of community, a sense of group identity. To a large extent, this is the reason why India is one of the most successful democracies in the world where as a large part of Africa is still struggling to establish themselves as a nation.
It is important to remember that the concept of a nation-state was imposed upon most colonies (on independence) by their colonial powers. But the people, for most part, were not ready to embrace it. The civil wars in Africa and Iraq typify that sociological resistance. But somehow it was different in India. Yes, there was civil unrest in India following its independence, but nothing crippling. And this was despite the fact that provinces in India were as different from each other as countries were in Europe. It took a tyrant to hold Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds in a united Iraq, whereas India has held its own with over a dozen religions, 50 languages, hundreds of disparate communities. How? Why? The answer is M.K. Gandhi. It is because Gandhi helped bind people together as Indians, he created the nation-state of India among everyone living there. Seldom has any individual made such an impact on such a diverse society.
So yes, Gandhi did deliver India its freedom, its true freedom. But not how the history books describe it. His legacy is much more palpable than dates and events in a book.
Similar Posts:
(automatically generated)
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:00 am (#)
[...] Gandhi help get us independence or did the British just get up and leave? Semantic Overload takes a brief look at Gandhi’s legacy under this assumption. If you must know, his conclusions will not make anyone smash any windows [...]
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:48 am (#)
I agree with the part of WWII leading to Indian independence, but I would not go far into giving Gandhi the credit for bringing about a stable India state. British left India with a large army and a stable government. A rebellion would have earned the wrath of the entire Indian armed force and would be doomed from the start. The dominance of Congress in the early Republic meant that there was stability and consistency in decision making. By the time Congress lost its dominance, one generation has passed and the need to rebel was considerably reduced. The easiest historical analogy I can think of is the collapse of the Roman Republic and the ascension of Octavian as Roman Emperor. Though there was strife about the collapse of the 750 year old Republic, the strength of Augustus was such that he could control the empire. By the time Augustus died after 40 years as Emperor, no one knew of life under another ruler. So, the empire lasted, that is until Nero came and undid most of the good work. For India’s sake, we can hope Nero stays out of the way :)
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am (#)
The republic of Ireland, was a forerunner to us. What the irish started, India made fashionable and the rest of the 20 odd colonies followed. Even without the world war, we would have followed the Irish more or less – their independence movement and ours are eerily similar.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:22 pm (#)
As the wikipedia article on Clement Attlee, who was prime minister of UK when India became free, says:
This happened to a large extent because Churchill wasn’t ready to let go of the idea of the British Empire. Attlee’s focus on the other hand was on decolonization.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:32 pm (#)
@Bala: Oh yes, I agree with you on that World War or not, India would have continued its freedom struggle. But what I am not sure of is whether or not Britain would have given up on holding on to India if not for WWII. After all, India was the Jewel in the crown of the British Empire, and for as late as 1945 Sir Winston Churchill was singing the glories of colonialism. So I guess my question on alternate history is “If the British Monarchy had the same resources in 1945 as it did in 1900, then would it still have granted India its freedom in 1947?”
Regardless, I do believe that India would have continued with its freedom struggle and eventually secure it, and Gandhi would have been a big part of it, in life and death.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pm (#)
@http://routinated.blogspot.com/:
If it was a strong army and a stable government that secured India’s stability, then the same must have held for Pakistan too. But somehow Pakistan failed in that attempt, it has had just over 20 years of democratic rule in over 60 years since independence. We could attribute our success to our ’secular’ policies, but then again I’d argue that Gandhi was one of the biggest advocates of secularism (in fact, I’d describe him as a secular fundamentalist; and fundamentalism cannot be good in any shape or form). I’d still argue that Gandhi was the big influence in keeping India united.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm (#)
@Rohan: True, but what prompted Lord Attlee to adopt such a policy. My argument is that it was the aftermath of WWII; Attlee realized that trying to hold on to colonies is not an economically viable option, but Churchill was too dogmatic to see that.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 pm (#)
Responding to comment #7:
That was what I was trying to say :). That the British public by that point was probably fed up with the romantic notion of the British Empire. So they chose Attlee over Churchill. This change in the political situation in Britain has as much to do with India ‘winning’ it’s freedom.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm (#)
routinated again. My name didn’t come correctly the last name. Regarding ur reply, Pakistan did not have the political stability that India enjoyed in its initial years. Republic of Pakistan came to in 1956, 4 years after India. Two years later the army seized power, after the President declared martial law. There were four governments in the course of the two years. So, the governance was by no means stable.
Gandhi did set up a system that could lead India and credit is due for that, but he wasn’t around to oversee it. But fortunately for us, it went ahead as it should.
btw,what Attlee did was done by de Gaulle later in France, the other country that was devastated by WWII.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm (#)
I think the greatest contribution is something he wrote about himself – he often spoke of a circle of violence, where he says that when a country gets its independence through violence, it is, implicitly, giving a right to dissenters within itself to use violent means of struggle. He theorised, therefore, that this spiralling violence could harm the newly formed entity for years to come.
When we look around us, we see how true this statement is!
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm (#)
@routinated: True indeed. Regarding Gandhi not being around to oversee a stable India, I am not convinced that Gandhi was the right person to be indulged in free India’s politics. Simply because he was extremely influential and a (secular, pacifistic) fundamentalist. I dread imagining how India would have handled the 1948 aggression by Pakistan with Gandhi’s insistence on non-violence (to the point where he urged Churchill to let German troops march into London).
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 pm (#)
is it the fear of retribution that led to the last two paragraphs praising MKG or was that your genuine thought process?
we’ll never know, will we?
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:56 pm (#)
@shirnath:
First, I’d appreciate it if you at least commented with a real email address so that I may at least authenticate your identity. But nevertheless, here’s the answer to your question.
I did lay down the facts for everyone to see. The comments section have served to clarify my arguments. For instance, the comparison between India and Pakistan’s political stability. I haven’t held myself back in saying that Gandhi may have become an expensive liability if he was allowed to influence and dictate free India’s politics.
Despite these, if you choose to doubt the sincerity of my post, then please let me know what words/arguments/ideas would convince you otherwise. If there aren’t any, then I guess its a matter of faith to take my statements at face value. I’ll leave that up to you.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:20 am (#)
agree with the post.
one of the legacies of the indian freedom struggle was that it united the country against a common enemy(the british imperialism) and introduced the modern ideals of democracy ,freedom ,liberty and equality to India. And it is true that though ww2 was the immediate reason for the indian independence ,India’s resistance movement certainly played a part in India’s eventual independence.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:31 am (#)
agree with the post.
India’s freedom movement helped in uniting india against a common enemy (the imperialist britain) and introduced the ideals of democracy , equality , liberty and freedom .
Though ww2 was the immediate reason for india’s independence ,india’s resistance movement did play a part in securing india’s freedom (though not as big part as the text books make us believe)
September 5th, 2008 at 12:06 am (#)
Among all the erstwhile European colonies, India was the first to gain independence. Others followed suit eventually. Was WWII the sole reason for the Independence? Would European powers have given up their colonies had their been no independence movements in these places? They certainly didn’t give up their colonies after WWI, and held on to several smaller colonies for decades beyond WWII.
You say, Gandhi was responsible to give a social identity for Indians as a whole. Maybe it is precisely because of this social identity, the British found it impossible to rule over India any longer? Remember, their strategy to conquer India was to divide and rule. Maybe that is what your history books were trying to convey?
Things are not that simple, please…
September 5th, 2008 at 1:28 pm (#)
@sri:
Actually India was not the first European colony to gain independence. Here are a few:
Indonesia in 1944 from the Dutch, Jordon in 1946 from the UK, Lebanon in 1943 from France,
Vietnam in 1945 from France.
Indonesia’s independence was a direct consequence of Japanese invasion WWII, there was no “freedom struggle”, the Dutch were simply too impoverished to hold on to their colonies. In Jordon’s case, the UK actually request the UN that Jordon be recognized as a sovereign nation, again no freedom struggle. Lebanon got its independence when France was invaded by Germany, and France couldn’t recover fast enough to reclaim Lebanon. The French Colony of Vietnam has a similar story of independence. It was Japanese invasion in WWII followed by its defeat that liberated Vietnam.
It was WWII that triggered their independence, and in all cases the colonial powers simply did not have the resources to hold on to these colonies after the war. And my argument is that the British had successfully combated India’s freedom struggle because of their vast economic and political might. WWII changed all that; it weaken Britain to the point that they no longer had the strength to hold their own in India, and so had little choice but to pull out. Had WWII never happened, Britain would have been as powerful in 1947, and would have been successful in combating the freedom struggle, and we may not have received our independence until much later.
With regards to colonies being held for decades after WWII, most were in Africa and very few among them actually had an independence movement of their own. So Europe pretty much got up and left on their own accord in these places.
September 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm (#)
Nice post.
Gandhi’s contribution to Independence might be much less than what our history books describe but it’s not as marginal as what one might perceive after reading your post.
His contribution to Freedom is, as you correctly mentioned, unparalleled.
Vishal
September 7th, 2008 at 11:39 am (#)
spot on man