What caused INDIAN INDEPENDENCE
started by scribblingpad 7 mnths agoFlat
Nested
Replies
1. 1857 Mutiny... Laxmibai, Tatya Tope, Bahadurshah Zafar, Mangal Pandey...& all associated with that struggle.
2. Mahatma Gandhi , Non-Violence & his ability to unite a country divided on beliefs, religion, castes, social status. Till date bringing everyone together for a common cause is difficult. But for those few years of freedom struggle the people of India united on a call from Mahatma Gandhi (& other leaders)
3. Sardar Patel...strong tactics on the princeley states & uniting the states
4. Contributions of many other leaders... Nehru, Maulana, Azad, Khan Abdul Gafar khan, Sarojini Nainu, Bose, Bhagat Singh..& many others....plus the literature giants.... Tagore, Tilak, Bharati....
5. Jalianwala Baug..
6. The World War II scenario was abrilliant timing by our leaders to push British to the brink of accepting defeat.
Isnt it great to know that we didnt have to even pick up arms to $crew the British...we did it with just simple acts of Non-violence.... & thats the most humiliating defeat ever to any Empire. British still feel that pinch... thats why they have these pimps in desi clothes who are trying to de-merit the contributions of hundreds of our leaders & those millions who stood by the leaders to get the freedom...by making the world war II as the biggest factor. Some of these negative opinions are also the products of hatred against India by some terrorist outfits, mostly those affected by the partition of India. While you should feel sorry for most victims of partition...but there are some scumbags in those victims who are hiding behind the tragedy & still hoping that they can scratch the old wounds by way of showing their loyalty to the Birirsh Empire & dissent against Indian Leaders & the Indian freedom. They might have lost some property, belongings & even family members in that partition...& the revenge still exists in their mind against India. Khalistan is an example of such hatred against India...it is more about their personal revenge for the partition than about values & principles.
2. Mahatma Gandhi , Non-Violence & his ability to unite a country divided on beliefs, religion, castes, social status. Till date bringing everyone together for a common cause is difficult. But for those few years of freedom struggle the people of India united on a call from Mahatma Gandhi (& other leaders)
3. Sardar Patel...strong tactics on the princeley states & uniting the states
4. Contributions of many other leaders... Nehru, Maulana, Azad, Khan Abdul Gafar khan, Sarojini Nainu, Bose, Bhagat Singh..& many others....plus the literature giants.... Tagore, Tilak, Bharati....
5. Jalianwala Baug..
6. The World War II scenario was abrilliant timing by our leaders to push British to the brink of accepting defeat.
Isnt it great to know that we didnt have to even pick up arms to $crew the British...we did it with just simple acts of Non-violence.... & thats the most humiliating defeat ever to any Empire. British still feel that pinch... thats why they have these pimps in desi clothes who are trying to de-merit the contributions of hundreds of our leaders & those millions who stood by the leaders to get the freedom...by making the world war II as the biggest factor. Some of these negative opinions are also the products of hatred against India by some terrorist outfits, mostly those affected by the partition of India. While you should feel sorry for most victims of partition...but there are some scumbags in those victims who are hiding behind the tragedy & still hoping that they can scratch the old wounds by way of showing their loyalty to the Birirsh Empire & dissent against Indian Leaders & the Indian freedom. They might have lost some property, belongings & even family members in that partition...& the revenge still exists in their mind against India. Khalistan is an example of such hatred against India...it is more about their personal revenge for the partition than about values & principles.
2, 1, and 3 in that order. The biggest reason is one that is not listed. Like someone else said here the Brits had a proud history and civilization, and had a pride in claiming to be a democracy that respected people's wishes. That element of humane attitude was the seed that helped to bear the fruit of freedom.
If India had been occupied by a NEARBY power - say, China - Chinese could have become our national language now. Remember we were Colonized by nearby powers - the foreign Muslim invaders for almost 600 years, who simply butchered and subjugated us.
If India had been occupied by a NEARBY power - say, China - Chinese could have become our national language now. Remember we were Colonized by nearby powers - the foreign Muslim invaders for almost 600 years, who simply butchered and subjugated us.
It was the war that drained the British empire badly
Then the restlessness in the indian subcontinent...and demand for freedom from all quarters
Gandhiji's nonviolence and Netaji's aura and violence all contributed to it...
Would agree with Avinashji about nehru...
reflector
Then the restlessness in the indian subcontinent...and demand for freedom from all quarters
Gandhiji's nonviolence and Netaji's aura and violence all contributed to it...
Would agree with Avinashji about nehru...
reflector
I agree, However, I wouold like to add a few more.
a) The Brits looked upon themselves as people who are civilized and not someone who indulges in barbaric practices. So when they saw non violent people getting kicked with lathis but only to return and this being a mass movement, in some sense there were a few people who opposed the British Occupation of India in Britain. For example they did not brutally Kill Gandhi the first time he surfaced as a leader. They saw his non-violent behaviour and did not kill him for showing dissent. they saw Indians as an inferior civilization, but except a few, they did not hate it.
b) In addition they had a culture of democracy, where they tolerated protests/dissent from their own, and did not subjugate this
c) they had taken India's wealth and had started using India as market for their goods. However with Gandhiji's "abhor foreign goods movement" that came to a stop. Thus the economic well being of Brits was not directly linked to India anymore. With protests being planned everyday, the risk -reward equation was turning south.
d) The dialogue between Gandhi's faction and people who wanted militancy was also not concluding. Militant approach
was still there, and when they retaliated, the British were outnumbered, and only saved by Indian police.
The point to note, is that the same Non-violence will not work with Barbaric Kingdoms/people.
a) The Brits looked upon themselves as people who are civilized and not someone who indulges in barbaric practices. So when they saw non violent people getting kicked with lathis but only to return and this being a mass movement, in some sense there were a few people who opposed the British Occupation of India in Britain. For example they did not brutally Kill Gandhi the first time he surfaced as a leader. They saw his non-violent behaviour and did not kill him for showing dissent. they saw Indians as an inferior civilization, but except a few, they did not hate it.
b) In addition they had a culture of democracy, where they tolerated protests/dissent from their own, and did not subjugate this
c) they had taken India's wealth and had started using India as market for their goods. However with Gandhiji's "abhor foreign goods movement" that came to a stop. Thus the economic well being of Brits was not directly linked to India anymore. With protests being planned everyday, the risk -reward equation was turning south.
d) The dialogue between Gandhi's faction and people who wanted militancy was also not concluding. Militant approach
was still there, and when they retaliated, the British were outnumbered, and only saved by Indian police.
The point to note, is that the same Non-violence will not work with Barbaric Kingdoms/people.
I believe that several situations contributed at once. The biggest factor was world war II because after it it was an economic nightmare for the british to continue India as a colony. There was the factor of the restive and therefore increasingly ungovernable Indians. Gandhiji played his role and the violent freedom fighters played their role and both were equally important. Nehru's aura? I don;t know. I think that this was not a contributing factor at all. Nehru contributed only to the partition of India because of his burning desire to quickly become the Prime Minister.
Avinash
In my humble opinion, none of the above. It was the growing will of a nation that had had enough and leaders like Gandhiji and others were the powerful catalysts that tapped that energy and channelized it into a power that gave birth to freedom. they were greta but their timing was also right..........
© 1998-2008 Copyright Sulekha.com Connecting Indians Worldwide, All Rights Reserved.
avrao1953