Gandhi: Your assessment of his character & contribution to winning Indian Independence?

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,856
India
It is admirable if it results in the accomplishment of one's goals while also saving lives, though.
Gandhi let a peaceful political movement and India's transition to a smooth democracy, but many Indians believe his preference for Nehru over Patel as a successor was a blunder. But Bose was the real reason that British decided to leave India, the INA trial led to mutiny in Royal Naval Mutiny who were loyal to British throughout World War 2 period. Even Clement Attlee conceded this fact about Bose.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,781
USA
Gandhi let a peaceful political movement and India's transition to a smooth democracy, but many Indians believe his preference for Nehru over Patel as a successor was a blunder. But Bose was the real reason that British decided to leave India, the INA trial led to mutiny in Royal Naval Mutiny who were loyal to British throughout World War 2 period. Even Clement Attlee conceded this fact about Bose.
I am not sure about all this at all. Patel died in 1950, too early to have made any difference. Many Indians wanted (still wants) to see the British forcefully ejected out of India, as a display to prove Indian martial prowess. They are the ones behind fabricating stories about Bose and Indian independence militancy. Reality was something different.

After WW1, British knew that their role of ruling India was up. They just played some delay tactics before fixing a date.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,755
SoCal
Gandhi let a peaceful political movement and India's transition to a smooth democracy, but many Indians believe his preference for Nehru over Patel as a successor was a blunder. But Bose was the real reason that British decided to leave India, the INA trial led to mutiny in Royal Naval Mutiny who were loyal to British throughout World War 2 period. Even Clement Attlee conceded this fact about Bose.
Patel died in 1950 so at least India got a much longer rule with Nehru. That said, though, he certainly blundered in his Chinese policy.

As for Bose, what do you think that he would have thought about the partition of India had he lived?
 
Oct 2019
8
USA
I am not sure about all this at all. Patel died in 1950, too early to have made any difference. Many Indians wanted (still wants) to see the British forcefully ejected out of India, as a display to prove Indian martial prowess. They are the ones behind fabricating stories about Bose and Indian independence militancy. Reality was something different.

After WW1, British knew that their role of ruling India was up. They just played some delay tactics before fixing a date.
Frankly, India can wipe its bum with Britian's military today and that differential will only increase in the future. No one cares about the colonial period anymore. India had a glorious past. If things go well, maybe India can hope for a good future.

Don't know why Dalits love the British so much. They treated Dalits the worst among all Indians and Brahmans the best.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,739
New Delhi, India
Nonsense.
Civilized people do not communicate like that even if they think that the other person is talking nonsense in an internet forum unless it is a third-rate site. Did I ever say that OIT is nonsense? It is a theory in which you believe - I don't.
Patel died in 1950 so at least India got a much longer rule with Nehru. That said, though, he certainly blundered in his Chinese policy.
That was his second blunder, the first was Kashmir. ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,755
SoCal
That was his second blunder, the first was Kashmir. ;)
Yeah, IMHO, Nehru should have either let Pakistan have the Muslim-majority parts of Kashmir or else expel Pakistan from all of Kashmir (rather than prematurely asking the UN for a ceasefire) and then hold a plebiscite there. India isn't going to be able to claim that the Maharjah's signature on Kashmir's Instrument of Accession should be decisive when it insisted on popular sovereignty in both Hyderabad and Junagadh.
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,781
USA
Frankly, India can wipe its bum with Britian's military today and that differential will only increase in the future. No one cares about the colonial period anymore. India had a glorious past. If things go well, maybe India can hope for a good future.

Don't know why Dalits love the British so much. They treated Dalits the worst among all Indians and Brahmans the best.
We are not talking about today, are we?
What gives you the idea that Dalits "love the British so much"? Are Indians still so caste ridden?
 
Oct 2019
8
USA
We are not talking about today, are we?
What gives you the idea that Dalits "love the British so much"? Are Indians still so caste ridden?
Its a fact that lower caste Shudras, Dalits and Christian converts wax eloquent about how great British rule was. I observed this many times in real life.

They think British were anti caste sytem because they were Christian, but the fact is the British shipped large number of Shudras and Dalits as indentured labor to their colonies such as Trinidad.

Also, it is a well known fact that the British Indian Army was the backbone of the empire.
They nearly lost India in 1857 when over 6,000 Europeans were killed in a span of few days.

What makes you so sure that the same army, now even more well oiled thanks to fighting two world wars could not have revolted again and overthrown British rule?
 

rvsakhadeo

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
9,212
India
I am not sure about all this at all. Patel died in 1950, too early to have made any difference. Many Indians wanted (still wants) to see the British forcefully ejected out of India, as a display to prove Indian martial prowess. They are the ones behind fabricating stories about Bose and Indian independence militancy. Reality was something different.

After WW1, British knew that their role of ruling India was up. They just played some delay tactics before fixing a date.
To display India's martial powers ? Indians do not need to do that. Our army has thrashed Pakistan army in three major and countless minor encounters since 1948.