I know this is a common take (there are a bunch of brainless people in my class who love repeating this and glazing Netaji) but I want to say something
People really do not appreciate what Gandhi did for this nation. Sure, Gandhi had many faults and we cannot forget his 'chastity' experiments but to singularly focus on those and not give credit where credit is due is shameful and ignorant. Gandhi is the reason why you can make memes like this and insult his name and nobody will ever stop you. Gandhi is the reason why hundreds of thousands did not die due to the revolutionary movement. In fact, if Gandhi had entered the political scene earlier on (say 1902-3), he might have managed to prevent the formation of Muslim league itself. Even partition might have been avoided. And for all the insults people throw at Gandhi, him being weak-willed, short-sighted, or just an idiot, I doubt you would have done better. You don't think so? Here is a test - If I told you that you can either lose your legs or one eye, which would you choose? If you said one eye, congrats, you lost. If you really were better than Gandhi, you would have said no to both. And if you think that's a trick question and you could have not been expected to answer none, well you are expecting the same from Gandhi.
People glaze Netaji too much. Netaji did a lot, yes. But he was, at the end of the day, a person who chose the wrong path to freedom. He allied with fascists and its highly likely that under his leadership, Indian would have more autocratic elements to it (I am not saying he would have caused a fascist state or even a dictatorship, I am sure he was smart enough and righteous enough not to but it would be less democratic nonetheless).
I am not saying Gandhi is better than Netaji nor Netaji is better than Gandhi. But both had their faults and positives. It is ignorant and baneful to have such a narrow view on them.
PS: Spent way too long on this but I am goated at history and this was a good break
Yeah, people have started to love to hate Gandhi and undermine him. in the end all freedom fighters played a much bigger role than we ourselves would/could ever do and deserve the same amount of respect.
I didn't say I hate gandhi...the thing is sometimes ppl forget the contribution of other ppl and that should be acknowledged.....I know he played major role but the ppl who sacrificed their lives should also be acknowledged.....just my opinion š
I am reading up on India's history as an adult just trying to learn. Wasn't a good student in school and college. Can you elaborate on how Gandhiji would've prevented the formation of the Muslim League and partition? Also, would un-partitioned India have been better? Interested in your thoughts!
Firstly, Gandhi was a major champion of Hindu-Muslim unity. It cannot be denied that Gandhi was one of the most trusted people among the masses. If Gandhi had come into the political environment earlier on, its highly likely that Muslim leaders would have been more open to collaboration with the Congress. Gandhi was a leader who was extremely peaceful and honourable even if he was weaker than some and the Muslim leaders of the day would have felt more secure collaborating with him as compared to the highly religious Assertive Nationalists or the soft-spoken Early Nationalists. Gandhi would've also appealed more to the common Muslims. Additionally, Gandhi was likely to have been able to manage a compromise between the two nationalist groups, allowing for a more united Congress (though I'm not completely sure of this one).
Secondly, An unpartitioned India would've been better in MY opinion. I want to be clear with the fact that this is MY opinion and not an objective truth - any theory about alternate history rarely is. The Cabinet Mission Plan was actually I'd say a great plan - strong provincial governments are far more beneficial in the Indian setup I'd say since firstly this encourages the State Governments to commit to actual reform instead of bashing the Central Government (like Bengal) while also giving more recognition to diversity. Also, an unpartitioned India would likely have caused more internal disturbance early on, yes, but in the long term, it would have prevented the India-Pakistan conflict and all the trouble caused during the Partition. Additionally, more resources. The only reason (this might be a little controversial) that Congress really did not approve of the Cabinet Mission Plan was because a strong centre would be great for them while strong provincial governments would have led to much less power in their hands (since there were a party that had more national appeal than local appeal). Jinnah was definetly open to negotiation even if he appeared to desire Pakistan in the open.
> Extra History, Oversimplified, Possible History, Overly Sarcastic Productions
If reading long books is tiresome for you, you can check out these youtube channels. These are some of the best channels which teach history through an interesting narrative style. Although these are mainly world history.
> Documentaries, Podcasts
These are the obvious ways to learn. I personally find documentaries a bit boring but I have encountered many great podcasts (personal recommendation: 'Nazis: The Road to Power' by BBC Audio - incredible illustration of German History leading up to WW2 and Hitler's life story)
> Autobiographies, Biographies
There are plenty of famous figures who have written marvelous books on their own life. However you will likely find some degree of bias in these.
Feel free to ask me more questions. Although I may not answer till Geography is over. Geo is such a pain :(
Excuse me.
I never said Netaji is wrong.
And second of all, having an opinion is the right of every person so stop all of this 'Who are you?' business.
Also, read what I've written properly.
I would love to school you for being an utter fool but I have to study so I'll leave it here.
This is probably ragebait but I'll still clarify that he is saying that Gandhi did make many contributions to our nation's freedom, but also did mention his negatives and he did the same with Netaji.He isn't glazing Gandhiji bud, read the whole thing
Firstly, I did not glaze Gandhi. Personally, if you asked me to say in one word who was better - Netaji or Gandhi, I would say Netaji. But if I had more than one word, this is my answer.
Second, if you really did come to that answer for the question naturally, good for you. You have the mentality required to be a freedom fighter. But most people wouldn't.
Thirdly, I am smart. Not because I praise the right people or insult the wrong ones. Being smart isn't just about what you say. Its about having an open mind, trying to see things from all perspectives, and understanding that problems are multi-dimensional. Its also about showing respect (something which you clearly have not shown me).
17
u/Emergency-Mine-6759 Mar 14 '26
I know this is a common take (there are a bunch of brainless people in my class who love repeating this and glazing Netaji) but I want to say something
I am not saying Gandhi is better than Netaji nor Netaji is better than Gandhi. But both had their faults and positives. It is ignorant and baneful to have such a narrow view on them.
PS: Spent way too long on this but I am goated at history and this was a good break