Comments on: Gandhi’s Legacy

By: ramesh

ramesh — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:39:38 +0000

spot on man

By: Vishal

Vishal — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 00:36:59 +0000

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

By: Semantic Overload

Semantic Overload — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:28:46 +0000

@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.

By: sri

sri — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 05:06:35 +0000

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…

By: http://vib-gyor.blogspot.com/

http://vib-gyor.blogspot.com/ — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:31:10 +0000

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)

By: rajat

rajat — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:20:35 +0000

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.

By: Semantic Overload

Semantic Overload — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:56:29 +0000

@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.

By: shrinath

shrinath — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:46:26 +0000

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?

By: Semantic Overload

Semantic Overload — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:45:26 +0000

@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).

By: http://imamwapsoro.blogspot.com/

http://imamwapsoro.blogspot.com/ — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:48:05 +0000

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!