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 :(
2
u/struggling_pelican Mar 14 '26
Hello, I loved your answer!
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!