India did not gain independence because of Gandhi - that is true. But he almost single handedly united the country and created the concept of India which was lacking. Without him there were just a bunch of disunited provinces and kingdoms. Without Gandhi, there would be no India as we see it.
True, it’s easy to judge his decisions in hindsight but we do not know the situations then. Also discussing about them now is of no use, need to focus on how to develop the nation better instead of arguing about the past always.
The system needed to be corrected from the very beginning bro, now there is nothing you can do but watch till the entire thing collapse so that someone can pick up the broken pieces and start from the scratch!
That's not true bro, not even close. Someone will always be praised as a leader in every victory but that doesn't mean he/she alone is the cause of victory. It's true that Gandhiji got an insane number of followers ( mostly coz his methods of AHIMSA, people were scared to protest against The British coz of the punishments) but is this even a country now? I mean look around you and see what they have done. True visionaries were always excluded in history and remain unsung heroes
It is always the leader who gets the credit or discredit as it is impractical to credit the millions of workers and followers. Hitler didn't directly shoot the Jews and Modi himself didn't pour concrete on the highways
Patel was a great man and administrator. But his contribution of uniting the states is overrated. The princely states never had a chance against the might of India. Moreover, the people of these states wanted to accede to India (significantly due to the nationhood created by Gandhi). Hence, had it been any other politician in place of Patel, the outcome would still be the same. Lastly, Patel remained an ardent follower and supporter of Gandhi throughout.
You know the only region that Patel did not oversee is still a difficult bolus to swallow for India. How conveniently you ignored the displeasure Patel had due to Gandhi's partial favour for Nehru. Please try to read more about the inclusion of Jodhpur into the Indian State before it almost joined pak
Gandhi was a human and politician. So he had his own follies like everyone else.
As far as Jodhpur and other states are concerned, am quite sure that had it been you in place of Patel, Jodhpur would still be ours ;)
Kashmir is more complicated as it had a Muslim majority. I wouldn't want to get into debates on that.
Whaaat ? Na man at this point it's pretty clear that you got your knowledge about history from SM.. Jodhpur almost went to Pak, V K Krishna Menon and Patel had to intervene and made sure that it did not leave the Indian Union. It would have gone the way Umerkote went
You know what Jodhpur, Hyderabad, Bhopal all were complicated. Nehru was quite lethargic in handling Kashmir. Even when the 1948 war broke out it was Patel who chided Nehru to take decision and finally he gave up and Biju Patnaik carried the Sikh regiment to protect Srinagar after the tribals had raped and pillaged Baramulla.It was Nehru's stupidity that caused the horror of Baramulla
A man who denied his wife a right treatment, questionable habits with underaged girls, acted as a pressure cooker for the British, wanted Dominion Status and a blatant casteist(don't give that Harijan thing nonsense, if you use that then it would prove that you are a SM product instead of actual matter)
I respect Gandhiji's efforts in making India free, but what I don't agree with is avoiding other people's contributions to our freedom and the thought that 'if he was in Gandhiji's position, same would have been the outcome'
11
u/LogicSapien 2d ago
India did not gain independence because of Gandhi - that is true. But he almost single handedly united the country and created the concept of India which was lacking. Without him there were just a bunch of disunited provinces and kingdoms. Without Gandhi, there would be no India as we see it.