It is widely argued that by using violence (Bhagat singh and his comrades in arms) we would have gained independence a few years earlier than 1947. How much truth is there to this angle of discussion?
In 1930, Congress and Gandhi were quite content with demanding dominion status. Extremists (HRA/HSRA) wanted ‘Purna Swaraj’ (complete independence). Seeing how public were siding with these extremists, in 1931, Congress and Gandhi, who only 6 months before had unanimously rejected the idea of asking for complete independence, declared that they too would demand complete independence. Had it not been for Bhagat Singh and HRA, Congress would still have been fighting for dominion status in 1947.
Nowhere it has been proved that Gandhi or Congress helped us in getting independence.Contrary to popular belief that Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence antics and Congress' "we will talk to them to give us independence" approach helped us in getting independence, there is concrete proof that Mahatma Gandhi had ‘minimal’ role in that. There is a reason why British left all of a sudden after the World War and not after the non-violent Quit India movement of 1942.
Another reason was ‘fear’.
Japanese army was quite feared for their battlefield antics. When Japan attacked British forces in South East Asia and freed Singapore, the Britishers ran away without even putting up a fight. Later, Sikhs, Marathas, Gurkhas and the likes were sent to fight the war. Indian forces, although much smaller in number managed to defeat Japanese forces. When these Indian forces came back to India, British Army was scared and did not want to fight the same army which had defeated the mighty Japanese forces.
All I am trying to say is that Congress and Gandhi did not really help us in getting independence and we would have got our independence much earlier if we had not been dependent on them.
I totally disagree with what Shreevant Tiwari has written.
He is of the opinion that revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh had neither a plan nor the experience to run a nation. True, a 23 year old might not have that experience but he did have a vision and a plan in place. He was the one who renamed Hindustan Republican Association to Hindustan Socialist Republican Association thus giving a socialist ideology to the movement. He had once said that "We do not want them to give an India like the post-Mahabharat India gotten from violence"
Japan would have never invaded India. Japan had always sided with India and wanted to free India. This is what they had to say during World War II
Bhagat Singh's revolution was not at all limited to Northern India. From Lahore to Bengal to Maharastha, many people were a part of this revolution.
That point about princely states fighting each other makes sense but we might have got another Sardar Patel to control that kind of situation.
Talking about loss of lives, there might have been no partition if HSRA were leading the freedom movement instead of political parties like Congress or Gandhi.
British did us no favor by governing us. The root cause of all the problems was the British rule and extremists wanted freedom from that.
I did not expect this answer to garner so much support. Thanks a lot.
I am adding some more evidences which prove that INC and Gandhi had no role to play in getting us independence but they in fact, tried to suppress nationalist movements, mainly Indian National Army led by Subhash Chandra Bose.
INA and Subhash Chandra Bose, with the help of Japan and Germany, had come very close to get India its independence in 1943 but all their plans were thwarted by INC and Gandhi. One of the evidences proving this had surfaced recently (around 2000).
Unfortunately for INC and Gandhi, this story went public and Subhash Chandra Bose and INA got a lot of public sympathy, much to the dismay of Congress.
There is also a conspiracy theory making the rounds that Subhash Chandra Bose was killed by British forces with the help of INC.
Apart from that,after the Second World War was over, three of the top officers of the Indian National Army (INA) – General Shah Nawaz Khan (Muslim), Colonel Prem Sehgal (Hindu) and Colonel Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon (Sikh) were put on trial at the Red Fort in Delhi. Their crime: “waging war against the King Emperor”
These trials were very public and increased the hatred of public towards British rulers.
One major incident not talked about in history books (for obvious reasons) which resulted in the downfall of British Empire in India was:Royal Navy Uprising
As the news of Congress trying to thwart the national movement and INA personnel being put on trial spread, people got inspired and sailors of the navy decided to rebel against the Government. This mutiny started in February 1946 and in two days, the Royal Indian Force and local police also joined the strike. It would have been all but over for Britain, you would think. Not when INC is around.
Even though people across all religions and communities came together to support this mutiny, many political leaders still condemned this movement. During this time, British forces challenged sailors aboard the destroyer Hindustan and killed all of those on board. Still, no one from political parties came ahead to offer support.
Unlike 1857, all the forces had come together and British army was too weak to suppress this mutiny.
Nowhere it has been proved that Gandhi or Congress helped us in getting independence.Contrary to popular belief that Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence antics and Congress' "we will talk to them to give us independence" approach helped us in getting independence, there is concrete proof that Mahatma Gandhi had ‘minimal’ role in that. There is a reason why British left all of a sudden after the World War and not after the non-violent Quit India movement of 1942.
Chief Justice P.B. Chakrabarty of Calcutta High Court, who had also served as the acting Governor of West Bengal in India, disclosed the following in a letter addressed to the publisher of Dr. R.C. Majumdar’s book A History of Bengal. The Chief Justice wrote: ‘ My direct question to him (Atlee) was that since Gandhi’s “Quit India” movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave?
In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji [Bose].
Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, “m-i-n-i-m-a-l!” ” Subhas Chandra Bose, the Indian National Army, and the War of India’s Liberation – Ranjan Borra, Journal of Historical Review, no. 3, 4 (Winter 1982)
…The Indian Army in India is not obeying the British officers. We have recruited our workers for the war; they have been demobilised after the war. They are required to repair the factories damaged by Hitler’s bombers. Moreover, they want to join their kith and kin after five and a half years of separation. Their kith and kin also want to join them. In these conditions if we have to rule India for a long time, we have to keep a permanent British army for a long time in a vast country of four hundred millions. We have no such army….” Sir Stafford Cripps, intervening in the debate on the motion to grant Indian Indepence in the British House of Commons
Another reason was ‘fear’.
Japanese army was quite feared for their battlefield antics. When Japan attacked British forces in South East Asia and freed Singapore, the Britishers ran away without even putting up a fight. Later, Sikhs, Marathas, Gurkhas and the likes were sent to fight the war. Indian forces, although much smaller in number managed to defeat Japanese forces. When these Indian forces came back to India, British Army was scared and did not want to fight the same army which had defeated the mighty Japanese forces.
All I am trying to say is that Congress and Gandhi did not really help us in getting independence and we would have got our independence much earlier if we had not been dependent on them.
I totally disagree with what Shreevant Tiwari has written.
He is of the opinion that revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh had neither a plan nor the experience to run a nation. True, a 23 year old might not have that experience but he did have a vision and a plan in place. He was the one who renamed Hindustan Republican Association to Hindustan Socialist Republican Association thus giving a socialist ideology to the movement. He had once said that "We do not want them to give an India like the post-Mahabharat India gotten from violence"
Japan would have never invaded India. Japan had always sided with India and wanted to free India. This is what they had to say during World War II
“We Japanese, as an Eastern people, have ourselves for long been classed alongside the Chinese and the Indians as an inferior race, and treated as such, we must at the very least, here in Asia, beat these Westerners to submission, that they may change their arrogant and ill-mannered attitude.”
Bhagat Singh's revolution was not at all limited to Northern India. From Lahore to Bengal to Maharastha, many people were a part of this revolution.
That point about princely states fighting each other makes sense but we might have got another Sardar Patel to control that kind of situation.
Talking about loss of lives, there might have been no partition if HSRA were leading the freedom movement instead of political parties like Congress or Gandhi.
British did us no favor by governing us. The root cause of all the problems was the British rule and extremists wanted freedom from that.
I did not expect this answer to garner so much support. Thanks a lot.
I am adding some more evidences which prove that INC and Gandhi had no role to play in getting us independence but they in fact, tried to suppress nationalist movements, mainly Indian National Army led by Subhash Chandra Bose.
INA and Subhash Chandra Bose, with the help of Japan and Germany, had come very close to get India its independence in 1943 but all their plans were thwarted by INC and Gandhi. One of the evidences proving this had surfaced recently (around 2000).
There is also a conspiracy theory making the rounds that Subhash Chandra Bose was killed by British forces with the help of INC.
Apart from that,after the Second World War was over, three of the top officers of the Indian National Army (INA) – General Shah Nawaz Khan (Muslim), Colonel Prem Sehgal (Hindu) and Colonel Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon (Sikh) were put on trial at the Red Fort in Delhi. Their crime: “waging war against the King Emperor”
These trials were very public and increased the hatred of public towards British rulers.
One major incident not talked about in history books (for obvious reasons) which resulted in the downfall of British Empire in India was:Royal Navy Uprising
As the news of Congress trying to thwart the national movement and INA personnel being put on trial spread, people got inspired and sailors of the navy decided to rebel against the Government. This mutiny started in February 1946 and in two days, the Royal Indian Force and local police also joined the strike. It would have been all but over for Britain, you would think. Not when INC is around.
Even though people across all religions and communities came together to support this mutiny, many political leaders still condemned this movement. During this time, British forces challenged sailors aboard the destroyer Hindustan and killed all of those on board. Still, no one from political parties came ahead to offer support.
Unlike 1857, all the forces had come together and British army was too weak to suppress this mutiny.
Comments
Post a Comment