There are so many revolutionaries whose contributions we have studied as students, heard and read about eg. Bhagat Singh, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Netaji Subash Chandra Bose, Chandrashekar Azad, Lala Lajpat Rai and hundreds more. However it seems that M.K Gandhi was the prime contributor or had the largest influence, or it is projected that way. What if he was never in the picture in the first place? There are 3 alternate scenarios.
Scenario 1: Continued colonialism
A lot of people say colonialism would have been gone anyway, based on 2012 hindsight. What is not stated is how much did India’s independence movement helped put an end to colonialism.
One of the reasons Britain went atop world economic order is because of its colonies – mainly India. India served both as a source of raw materials & labor, and its main market. However, things started changing from 1920, when Gandhi stepped up efforts to starve Britain both of its raw materials and its market. Not coincidentally, Britain’s fall from economic glory started from this period. Had India been supplicant like it was in 19th century, Britain might not have gone weak in the 1920s-40s and the post-War Britain might not have been so ready to put an end to colonialism.
Apart from weakening British economy, the efforts of Gandhi and other leaders shamed the institution of colonialism in the West. British people were appalled by their imperial overtures and openly came out to support Gandhi. Americans, all the way up to FDR were greatly appreciative of Gandhi and pressured British government into giving more powers to its Indian colony that would lead to an eventual independence. But, if India had been just fighting the way Bhagat Singh did, Western society would not have been so ashamed of what they did and global opinion might not have tipped the way towards putting an end to colonization.
Without Gandhi, the British Viceroys to India could have gotten away with the 19th century assumption that they were just “civilizing the barbarians”. Gandhi showed them who the Barbarians were.
Scenario 2: Early Independence
Without Gandhi at its helm, India could have gone quite extremist & anarchic (like it did in 1947) and at some point Britain would have been forced to leave the “hell hole”. The critical turning point could have been Chauri Chaura in 1922. That means we could have got independence around the time Afghans got theirs, and our fortunes might not have been any better.
Without Gandhi’s unifying Congress force and the legendary leaders the force produced, there was little to hold Indians. The south, north, east and west had little in common at that point and we could have been facing some of the brutal tribal wars that Africa is facing now.
Scenario 3: Independence in 1947 with no leadership
This is a minor alteration of scenario 2 – where Britain would vacate India after the war. But, it still doesn’t address the leadership “vacuum”. For all their valor, India could not have been run by the extremists. The leadership vacuum would have sunk the nation in a civil war and lead to balkanization.
Without Gandhi, our region would have crashed on its weight. There is a reason why all our founding fathers from Patel, Nehru, Rajaji to even Netaji called Gandhi the Mahatma even when they disagreed with him. Think about it. When was the time before that when whole India was united on a single cause and when was the time after that when it happened? He completely pulled off a magic, that I’m still having a tough time to imagine.
Unity was always our Achilles heel, but behind Mahatma the Tamils, Gujjus, Biharis, Assamese, Bengalis, Maratis, Telugus and all other Indians walked to show that there is one India. When he talked, the world listened.
Mahatma might not be right with some of his tactics, but everyone knew that the freedom movement would have fallen apart without him.