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. Now that’s too large a number for it to be coincidental.
Did 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 under the pretext of insulting the Father of the Nation.
Comments
2 comments. Leave your comment »
Ranjith K
Sep 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 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