Did we ' win ' our independence or were we ' given' our indpendence ?

[mujhaidind]

They gave it to us.

Gandhi and Nehru were white worshiping homosexuals who had unnatural relation with Lord Mountbatten. They delayed India's independence by adopting non-violent means.

 

[Star Wars]

Today marks 69 years to the day when the British begun handing over our land back to us .

There is lot one gets to read how our Freedom fighters fought & chased away the British and released our land from their clutches. The Politicians, Pol Parties & media does what they are best at in tom tomming a whole lot of ' achievements" which led to ' victory' on the night 14 /15 Aug 47.

My questions are :

1. Could the British remained in India for say another decade if they wished to ?

2. Did the British leave on their own accord or did we compel them to quit ?

Are we correct when we say we ' Won ' our independence when there is another school of thought that feels we we ' Give" independence.

British controlled India through the Indian army and the police once S.C Bose started his fight against the British Empire and the Karachi dockyard revolt by navymen it was sure that it was only a matter of time before we got Independence, especially when 2 million Indian soldiers had returned back to India. It was either leave peacefully or bloodshed...

 

[scorpionx]

1. Could the British remained in India for say another decade if they wished to ?

Perhaps not, for both domestic and International compulsions. Late 19th century British political liberalism was already imagining the idea of some kind of self rule in its colonies world wide. As a result a number of colonies got dominion status right after the first world war. In case of India, though a number of colonialists like Churchill despised any thing of that sort who saw it necessary to stay for keeping the Indians away from going back to pre-medieval savagery, the post second world war stress drained the zeal of British military and as well as civil bureaucracy which were the foundation pillars of British India. Even 'if' they managed to restore their human capacity to remain in India, lend lease act with US of A would not have permitted them to stay any more.

2. Did the British leave on their own accord or did we compel them to quit ?

Both. While as above stated, both domestic and international compulsions forced the British to quit, Indian nationalist movement certainly made them hurry.

 

[saiyan0321]

Tbh world war 1 and 2 plays a huge role over this. Those wars changed the very shape of the world. If those wars had not happened then perhaps we would have had a second battle for independence which would have been very severe or the British would have still kept their colonies intact bcz no nation willingly gives away its territories unless compelled too due to different factors.

However after world wars the British just didn't have the resources, wealth norbthe power to keep 19th centuryesque hold on us. They had no voice but to cut costs and leave south Asia. Not too mention unions like the united nations and their policy against unwilling occupations.

In a sort we won our independence with the way things worked out. Favorable conditions and turn of events are not bad noe belittle the struggle for independence.

 

[livingdead]

its a bit of both. and there was international pressure too(including from their own ally USA).
They should not have left in a hurry though, brining forward the date proved to be disasterous for many.

 

[Spring Onion]

its a bit of both. and there was international pressure too(including from their own ally USA).
They should not have left in a hurry though, brining forward the date proved to be disasterous for many.

it seems the premature decision has left Britain weakened forever . despite its veto power it is like a chicken

 

[livingdead]

it seems the premature decision has left Britain weakened forever . despite its veto power it is like a chicken

no, the decision was taken after new govt came to power in 45 and definitely not premature or taken in haste.
What they decided to actually implement it, was devoid of much deliberation, its like they were cutting losses, and british lives that need to leave India was more important than orderly transition of power. The initial date of independence that was decided (so that all necessary administrative/political work can be done) was brought forward. What was the hurry? Did anybody put pressure on them?

Uk was quite selfish to do it that way, but then they never cared for brown lives.
As to being weakened, well not really. They still punch way about their weight.

 

[Kompromat]

They were here to loot our resources. We won Independences for our respective nations but at great cost.