Mohandas K. Gandhi was, for a time, a stretcher bearer in the British Army, who served in the Boer War, including (I think) at Spion Kop. What would happen if he was killed there?
WI: Gandhi killed in the Boer War
- Thread starter Awilla the Hun
- Start date
Could there have been another Gandhi?
If any other person besides Gandhi, who was monumental in the liberation of India, would not have cropped up, maybe India would never have gotten independence???
If any other person besides Gandhi, who was monumental in the liberation of India, would not have cropped up, maybe India would never have gotten independence???
Hendryk
Banned
That's taking the great man theory of history and running with it into the wilderness. Indian independence was always a question of when and how, but never if. There was no way for Britain to hold such a huge and highly populated territory much longer than it did in OTL, Gandhi or no Gandhi.If any other person besides Gandhi, who was monumental in the liberation of India, would not have cropped up, maybe India would never have gotten independence???
Alex Richards
Donor
If any other person besides Gandhi, who was monumental in the liberation of India, would not have cropped up, maybe India would never have gotten independence???
Gandhi was the one who brought the ideas of Independence to the masses. However, there were parties and clubs of interlectuals seeking independence in some form before he became active. Certainly the likes of Nehru, Jinnah and co. aren't going to stop caring because of a lack of Gandhi.
Yes. Especially if all other things continue as in our timeline (IOW the two world wars breaking the UK economically, the UK being replaced by the US as the "biggest power", the anti-colonialist rhetoric of the Cold War USSR etc.). Gandhi or not, there is no way, the UK would be able to maintain control of India indefinitely.
I would doubt that a lack of Gandhi would change WW1 at all, but it may make the inter-war/WW2 era a little different.
Would his early death change the nature of the inter-war independence/self governance movement in a way that is positive or otherwise to the British? How would the Indian nationalists/Congress equivalent act during WW2?
Would his early death change the nature of the inter-war independence/self governance movement in a way that is positive or otherwise to the British? How would the Indian nationalists/Congress equivalent act during WW2?
I think the changes are in the 30s. Without Gandhi, Indian independence isn't as obviously popular as early, and isn't as fashionable in certain elite circles in Britain either. With most UK elites still able to persuade themselves that independence is a niche obsession of Indian elites, you don't get the loss of confidence that OTL led to the 1935 Government of India Act. Which in turn means that Churchill probably comes in out of the cold earlier than OTL, which may mean more preparedness and re-armament.
Well, first of all, Jinnah isn't driven away to join the Muslim League...leading to a rise of capitalist ideas in the Independence Movement, rather than the socialism that Nehru advocated and was popular with the masses. This leads to a united India, but also one with a stronger economy OTL. Ties to Britain would no doubt be kept, but I would think the flag would be different, indeed.
Ja. I think that the whole 'non-violence' form of protesting, which was so incredibly effective, first for Indian independence and then for Martin Luther King, may never come into being. Mahatma really is a fair epithet for the man.
OTOH, as others said, without him it's entirely possible that India doesn't get sidetracked into socialism in quite the same way, and it could end up being economically stronger. I don't know enough of the dynamics of the independence movement to know how likely non-partition would be.
I think maybe having HIM survive and Nehru replaced (or better, Nehru and Jineh both) might lead to a better sheaf of possibilities.
EDIT: the world as a whole OTL is a much better place because of Gandhi. There are ways in which India may possibly not be.
OTOH, as others said, without him it's entirely possible that India doesn't get sidetracked into socialism in quite the same way, and it could end up being economically stronger. I don't know enough of the dynamics of the independence movement to know how likely non-partition would be.
I think maybe having HIM survive and Nehru replaced (or better, Nehru and Jineh both) might lead to a better sheaf of possibilities.
EDIT: the world as a whole OTL is a much better place because of Gandhi. There are ways in which India may possibly not be.
Definitely, maybe what I should have said was HOW Gandhi did what he did, and if there was another person who could have pulled it off the way he did.
the part where I said, "maybe India would never have gotten independence???" was more like, food for thought.
My view:
It is very unlikely to have such a densely populated country to still be colonized in this day and age. However, it's another thing that indirect colonization is still prevalent in some parts of the world, where obvious super powers make indirect, sometimes even outright direct decisions (just camouflaged) for countries that are thousands of miles away.
Anyone?