Clement Atlee's Response on Gandhi's Role in Independence

It was British prime minister Clement Atlee who, when granting independence to India, said that Gandhi’s non-violence movement had next to zero effect on the British. In corroboration, Chief Justice P.B. Chakrabarty of the Kolkata High Court, who had earlier served as acting governor of West Bengal, disclosed the following in a letter addressed to the publisher of Ramesh Chandra Majumdar’s book A History of Bengal:

You have fulfilled a noble task by persuading Dr. Majumdar to write this history of Bengal and publishing it … In the preface of the book Dr. Majumdar has written that he could not accept the thesis that Indian independence was brought about solely, or predominantly by the non-violent civil disobedience movement of Gandhi. When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor’s palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him 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 [Subhash Chandra 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!”

Source:

Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra, Three Phases of India’s Struggle for Freedom, Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, India, 1967, pp. 58-59.

Ranjan Borra, “Subhas Chandra Bose, The Indian National Army, and The War of India’s Liberation,” Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 20 (2001), No. 1, reference 46.

Hitler, NOT Gandhi, Should Be Given Credit for the Independence of India in 1947

Gandhi - His Attitude on Power

It is very easy to say, "I don't care about money", while having nice dinner at a seven star hotel.

If we go by what is known to the majority of the people, Gandhi is very simple and he did not have any interest on power etc. Except at the very beginning, he did not show any interest in becoming the president of Congress, and after getting the Independence, he did not take any post in the government.

In the later part of Gandhi's life, he had full power. Whatever he asked, it was done. He had Nehru, who has done everything that he asked (till the Independence). So, Gandhi never needed to take the power officially.

In 1939, Subash Chandra Bose contested for the Congress President elections. Gandhi had put Pattabi Seetharamayya as his candidate. Pattabi Seetharamayya lost in the elections, and Subhash Chandra Bose became the president of the Congress.

Gandhi did not like that. He publicly said, that the defeat of Sitaramayya was his own defeat. He asked many people to resign from their posts and have given zero co-operation to Subash Chandra Bose. Gandhi did not even attend the meetings of Congress. Bose got frustrated with the things happened in Congress because of Gandhi, and left Congress.

In 1946, India was on the way to Independence. Congress was supposed to elect the first Prime Minister of India. 16 states supported Sardar Vallabai Patel and only one state supported Nehru. But, Gandhi asked Patel to withdraw, and asked him to give the way to Nehru. Patel accepted it and Nehru became the first Prime Minister of India.

Gandhi never wanted to take power. But, he always wanted people, who listens to him in everything, to take power. Eventhough, Gandhi did not hold any official posts most of the time, he had full powers most of the time. He had people who listened to him for everything. When he was having full power, it is very easy to say that, he does not care about power. The real picture would come out only, when the people who have power do not listen to him.

Indian Independence - British Circumstances

During the world war - 2, Britain had spent lot of money. After the world war - 2, it became expensive for them to rule India. So, they gave Independence to India. For the same reason, they gave independence to Jordan in 1946, Palestine in 1947, Sri Lanka and Myanmar in 1948, and Egypt in 1952. For the same reason, France also had to grant independence to Laos in 1949, Cambodia in 1953, and Vietnam in 1954.

If there had been no world war - 2, and if Britain had not lost money, it would not have given independence to India for decades.

Even if Gandhi and other leaders of Congress had not done anything for Independence, still, Britain would have left India, purely because of financial reasons.

Had Mahathma Gandhi Lived For Another 10 Years

After the Independence, Nehru gradually kept aside many of his colleagues in freedom fight, who disagreed with him. The only exception might be Babu Rajendra Prasad. Many senior leaders including Chakravarthy Rajagopalachari, B.R.Ambedkar, Prakasam Panthulu moved out of Congress within couple of years after the Independence. Leaders like Shyam Prasad Mukherjee, moved out of the interim government formed by Nehru. Sardar Vallabai Patel died within 3 years after the Independence. Almost everyone who disagreed with Nehru either moved out of Congress, his government, or died soon after the Independence. The entire country is governed how Nehru wanted it.

When the British granted the Independence, Congress gradually started keeping Mahathma Gandhi away from the main activities. Eventhough, the entire government came down, when he fasted to return the money to Pakistan, apart from that, Congress and Nehru always did what they wanted. Mahathma Gandhi wanted to close Congress, since it served it's purpose. There were many other policies of Gandhi which did not make sense to Nehru and many other leaders of Congress. They have not followed any of Gandhi's advises after the Independence was declared.

If Gandhi had lived for 10 more years, Nehru would have definitely moved him out of Congress, or Gandhi himself moved out of Congress. Had Gandhi moved out of Congress in that way, he would not have become Father of Nation. He would have been just another freedom fighter like everyone else.

Nathuram Godse is the one who has given more fame to Gandhi than anybody else.

Partition of State/Country

When Pakistan wanted separate state, almost no leader of Congress liked that proposal. The Congress people and the Hindus did not want the separation. But, they had to accept the separation, because of Jinnah and Muslim League.

After 60 years, if we see in retrospect, as in Indian, I feel it was a good idea to separate the country. [By the way, I am not at all supportive of the riots that happened after the partition.] In the 60 years of Independent India, there was only 19 months period, when the Democracy was not honored. Other than that 19 months, rest of the time, the Democracy was honored in India, and only those whoever were elected by the people, ruled the country.

In 60 years of the Pakistan's history, half of the time, it was either ruled by the Military or was in Emergency. The basic democracy was not honored for more than 30 years in Pakistan. I don't have full details of the life of the people in Pakistan. But, I feel, the life of the people in India is much better than the life of the people in Pakistan.

When there was partition, the extremists moved to Pakistan. Another important thing is, with the partition, India scrapped the separate electorate based on the religion. Had Pakistan be not separated, India would have been forced to keep separate electorate based on the religion and also would be forced to introduce reservations based on the religion, which would have created many more problems, as if the existing problems are not enough. By partitioning the country, India got ridden of many bad things.

In retrospect, Partitioning of India may not be a bad idea.

After seeing the hatred of the people in Telangana and their movements, I feel, if the same thing continues, it would be better to give separate state, even by losing Hyderabad. May be after a decade or two, we may realize that, the separation was good for us.

Are Protests and Satyagraha Constitutional?

Taken from http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2011/08/14/faq-why-is-anna-hazare-wrong-and-lok-pal-a-bad-idea/

We have the right to protest peacefully. But it’s not about whether we have the right or not. It’s about are we using that right wisely. (You have the freedom of speech but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to blast Eminem using a loudspeaker at 2am in a residential district.)

As Ambedkar said while introducing the Constitution in November 1949, once the Constitution came into force, we should avoid all non-constitutional methods like protests and satyagraha, for they are the grammar of anarchy. If two persons go on fasts until death for two opposing reasons, we cannot decide the issue by allowing one person to die first.

Fast until death is political blackmail. It is a form of theatre engaged in to coerce the government into doing something that the agitators want. Whatever may be the cause, a single person cannot be allowed to dictate laws to the whole nation.


Another note from the same

Mahatma Gandhi used civil disobedience against laws imposed on India by the British government. Indians had no say in how the laws were made and how they were implemented. Indians could not repeal laws we didn’t want. Civil disobedience was justified in this context.

Gandhi also used it to coerce Indian nationalist leaders too, including Ambedkar and the Indian National Congress, into accepting his views. Whatever might be the wisdom of Gandhi’s intentions, this was undemocratic and created a culture of ‘high command’ that lives on to this day. Fasting was not justified in this context. This part of Gandhi receives little attention in the dominant narrative of Indian history.


Dr.Ambedkar on this issue. - http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2010/08/the-grammar-of-anarchy/

If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.

Statement of the Last Century

Had the audience of that day [in the High Court] been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse's appeal, they would have brought in a verdict of 'not guilty'.

- Justice G.D.Khosla on 21st June 1949.
(During the trail of Nathuram Godse)

Few Questions on Independence Movement

During the Independence movement, many people left their jobs/colleges/schools on the call of Gandhi and Congress. What happened to all of them? How was their life before and after joining the movement?

What happened to the people who were put in jail?

What happened to the families of those who were in jail?

If we had not got the independence, what difference would it have made to those people?

If we had not got the independence, what difference would it have made to the common man (atleast to 99.9% of the Indians)?

If Britishers were robbing our country, what are our leaders doing? (Rs.1,700,000,000,000 in a single year is not at all a small amount.)

Did we get independence, so that, Indians can rob the country instead of Britishers?

If we criticize Britishers for Divide and Rule policy, are not our leaders doing the same in the name of religion, caste, locality, language, dialect and by many others?

Does the Nationality matter (British, Indian, or Italian) or do we need someone who can improve our Life?

Why no history book (atleast what is available to 99% of the people) talk about the elections that happened before Independence except as one line in 500 pages book?

Why no history book talks about the Britishers giving the maximum control (in writing and spirit) to the elected governments (who are Indians) in the states many years before the Independence?

How many incidents were there when Britishers violated the constitution that they had written for ruling India?

Was the constitution that they had written for India, too bad for Indians?

How many times, Indians were arrested/killed, by violating their constitution (barring Jallianwala Bagh and couple of other similar incidents)?

Was the only motive of Independence, ruling by Indians and nothing else?

If not that many people sacrificed their life, when would we have got the Independence?

Do our freedom fighters know that, Ruling cannot be and should not be changed overnight? (One great leader asked for the freedom that night itself, if possible)

Indian Leaders rejected Simon Commission because, it does not have any Indians in it. Is it justifiable? Clement Attlee, who was a member of Simon Commission then, subsequently became the Prime Minister and gave Independence to India. Have not we blocked Clement Attlee to some extent in giving Independence to India?

There were 500 Kingdoms in India till 1947. What was the stand of the freedom fighters on those kingdoms? Just because, they were paying royalty to British, did they think that, they would be automatically merged in the country after Independence?

If we see the present andhra pradesh area, people in Hyderabad state suffered more because of Nizam's rule than the coastal andhra people by Britishers. Didn't our freedom fighters know that?

Unrelated Note:

In Chennai, I overheard a conversation of a young telugu couple. The person was telling his wife that, at the time of the separation of the state, NTR asked for Tirupathi, and MGR asked for Chennai. That's why, Chennai went to Tamilnadu, and Andhra got Tirupathi.

That was one of the funniest conversations that I heard. Probably, I can convince him that he was not correct. But, after 15-20 years, convincing his child would be more difficult, because, if anyone is believing something for more than 15 years, it requires lot of effort to change their belief.

I feel, Given enough power, history can be changed. (Atleast to what is known to 99.99% of the people.)

Tolstoy on Indian Independence

Tolstoy's observation on Indian Independence.

A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred million. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he would fail to grasp what those words mean.... Do not these figures make it clear that not the English, but the Indians, have enslaved themselves.

The same can be applied even now. People elect the politicians, and they only criticize them. The people enslaved themselves, and criticize the politicians who are honest in their dishonesty.

Source for Tolstoy's Observation: Gandhi - A Sublime Failure by S.S.Gill

Gandhi's Death - Hey Ram

Few Excerpts from the book, The Men Who Killed Gandhi by Manohar Malgonkar.

On 20th January 1948, Madanlal had exploded a bomb at Birla House, where Gandhi lived.

When Lady Mountbatten, who had come to see him soon afterwards, had congratulated him on his coolness he had explained to her that he not even realized that something had been exploded in the grounds of Birla House. 'If somebody fired at me point blank and I faced his bullet with a smile, repeating the name of Rama in my heart, I should be deserving of congratulations.'

On 30th January 1948,

No one noticed whether Gandhi's face bore a smile as he faced his assailant. But Gurbachan Singh, a Sikh businessman from Panipat who was a devotee of Gandhi and who was only a few steps behind him as he fell, deposed that Gandhi's last words were, 'Hai Rama!'. Karkare, on the other hand, who stood within a few feet of Gandhi and saw him as the bullets struck him swore to the other that all Gandhi uttered was a cry of pain, a guttural rasp, 'Aaaah!'

It is of course, possible that both are wrong, and that what they heard, or say they heard, was conditioned by the one man's veneration for Gandhi and the other man's contempt. Then again it is possible that both are right, and the invocation 'Hai Rama!' uttered with his last breath may have sounded to Karkare like a cry of pain.

Gandhi's Policies On Governance

An army should be non-violent.

Majority party should voluntarily withdraw from the business of governing.

Economy should reject all technological advances.

A society should abide by his own standards of austerity as well as humanitarian ideals.

Gandhi also wanted to close Congress after the Independence, since it served it's purpose. But, none of the other top leaders agreed to that.

Gandhi wrote the following in the Hind Swaraj.

India's salvation consists in unlearning what she has learnt during the last fifty years. The railways, the telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers, doctors and the such like have to go; and the so-called upper classes have to learn consciously, religiously and deliberately the simple peasant life, knowing it to be a life-giving true happiness.

Source:
The Men Who Killed Gandhi by Manohar Malgonkar
Gandhi - A Sublime Failure by S.S.Gill

Philosophical Speech By Mahathma Gandhi

On 20th Jan 1948, Madanlal had exploded a bomb at Birla House, where Gandhi lived. After Madanlal was arrested, Gandhi said the following in the evening prayer meeting.

No one should look down upon the misguided young man who had thrown the bomb. He probably looked upon me as an enemy of Hinduism. After all, had not the Gita said that, whenever there was an evil-minded person damaging religion, God sent someone to end his life?

Source: The Men Who Killed Gandhi by Manohar Malgonkar