America put pressure on Britain out of a fear that communism could spread to India. Far from Gandhi deserving credit for freedom, it was precisely because Indians were gradually growing ready to turn away from Gandhi and choose mass violence that Britain realized the game was up.

I’m happy with your change of tone

The QI movement was a real threat, and it came at a time the allies were facing defeat, so Cripps was sent. Unfortunately Gandhi rejected Cripps (In hindsight Rajaji rued this because this would have avoided partition).

is far better than

Gandhi’s contribution to the independence of India was probably as much as Janet Jackson’s contribution to the success of the Jackson five.

coming back to your other points.

This would have been fine if the QI movement suceeded. But it did not. It had some sucesses, but Gandhi did not use this to salvage a deal. He basically conceeded defeat and called off the movement.

I have not read anywhere that he has called off the movement. Do let me know if he/Congress has passed any resolution or comments calling off the movement. (like the way he did it in the 1920s when he called off the civil disobedience after the violence in Chauri-chaura). In a few years, british did quit India. I don’t think it failed. You are attributing the feelings of dissent in the armed forces to naval mutiny, the failed INA adventures etc.. but fail to acknowledge the work of Congress / Gandhi campaigns in trigerring those feelings.

Let’s come to the “naval mutiny”. So who ended the “naval mutiny”. It was Sardar Patel who diffused the situation and what organisation he belonged to.. the Congress. Mutineers respected him and resolved the issue peacefully.

BTW I do not see how a Chief Justice of India is a bad source. If there is a bias or a possible angle he could have been working that you have thought of please post it (just not the bengali angle — that basically amounts to bengali bashing)

Nit. your reference claims him to be a Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, not India. Anyways, it is a second hand opinion. Did Attlee write that in his memoirs?. He has written a memoir and if people are aware that he has written about Gandhi and the Congress movement in the way the Chief justice described, I’d atleast give some thought. But I’d take this insinuation against Gandhi’s effectiveness along with Gandhi is a rapist accusation.

Also, you conceded just now that QI movement was a real threat. What difference does it make that if Attlee thought otherwise.

One question I have is why Chiang Kai-Shek ,of all people, would be sufficiently interested about the Indian Independence movement for him to contact Roosevelt about it. (As mentioned by Bridget Jones at 25 and yes, I’ll go read the book and no, my google isn’t broken – but an answer from anyone on this would be appreciated.)

JJ, DizzyDesi@74 has given you the gist of the reasons as to why China’s Chaing Kai Shek became so interested in Indian affairs so as to lobby with Roosevelt for India’s cause – Japanese attacks on China, strong lobbying by Nehru resulting in his 1939 visit to China and Chiang’s & his wife’s visit to India in 1941-42. In fact Nehru established such a strong rapport with Chiang Kai-Shek’s articulate wife Madame Chiang that even she took up the cause of India with Roosevelt by wiring him directly ( ref. Mahatma’s fury, p129, Shadow of the Great game )

You will be intersted to know Churchill was very angry with Chiang’s lobbying with Roosevelt so in his message to Roosevelt on 13 Aug, 1942 - ” All chiang’s talk of congress leaders wishing us to quit in order that ,may help the Allies is eyewash…You coudl remind Chiang that Gandhi was prepared to negotiate with Japan on the free passage for Japanese troops through India to join Hitler. Personally I have no doubt that in addition that there would have been an understanding that the Congress would have the use of sufficient troops to keep down composite majority of 90 million muslims, 40 million untouchables, 90 million in the Indian states. The styel of his message prompts me to say “Cherchez la femme”. It may well be that ensuing weeks will show how very little real influence Hindu congress has over the masses in India ” Ref: TOP, Vol 2, S. No. 532, Churchill to Roosevelt, 13 Aug 1942 as referenced in the book.

According to author of the book, La femme in Churchill’s message to Roosevelt was a reference to Madame Chiang and to her influence on the her hsuband Chaing Kai-Shek as well her enthusiasm for Nehru.

The QI movement was a real threat, and it came at a time the allies were facing defeat, so Cripps was sent.

Unfortunately Gandhi rejected Cripps (In hindsight Rajaji rued this because this would have avoided partition).

This would have been fine if the QI movement suceeded. But it did not. It had some sucesses, but Gandhi did not use this to salvage a deal. He basically conceeded defeat and called off the movement. Again this was a little too late – the war had turned decisively,the british had won at El Alamein and the Russians at Stalingrad before the movement had run out of steam. By the time Gandhi called off QI, midway and Imphal had occurred.

So at the end of the day, Gandhi landed up with a failed movement, no gains in the negotiating table and a the increased hostility and vindictiveness of a British PM who had no sympathy to begin with. Worst of all, he had no more options in hand. He had played his trump and it had failed.

Slightly off on a tangent here, but a little better execution, a lot more clarity in his goals, slighlty better consolidation of the gains made, more flexibility in the methods followed, and he could have had a string of sucesses . As such, they were mainly either failures with a few silver linings or unmitigated disasters.

If you look at his movements, from south africa (fought for not carrying ID cards and landed up with the end of Indian immigration to SA), to Khilafat (why were we trying to be more islamic than the Ottomans?) to QI in terms of what they were supposed to achieve and what they actually achieved, they failed, were inconsisent or absurd to begin with.

Gandhi created opportunities, then screwed them up.

Coming back to your question:

Even assuming the ridiculous assertion that Brits were frightened by the bunch of INA folks (who never had any major military victory, and was not even trusted by the japanese to be battle worthy)

Enough with the strawman already.

The INA would have had no impact on Indian Independence, if it did not cause a backlash sympathy and an undercurrent of dissent in the armed forces.Or even if the dissent had been contained instead of blowing up in the RIN Mutiny. Or even if the RIN mutiny had no ripple effects and landed up as a one off. Instead from a position where they literally had millions of loyal troops and police personnel, who were running the empire for them, the british landed up with millions of troops who had demonstrated their intent to revolt.

The leaky boat certainly sunk, but it did succeed in getting the message across more effectively than the “superb craft”

The INA suceess was in creating dissent in the armed forces. It forced to british to ask the question that an empire faces the most threats fromQuis custodiet ipsos custodes.(or to use your words the lackeys could no longer be counted on)

BTW I do not see how a Chief Justice of India is a bad source. If there is a bias or a possible angle he could have been working that you have thought of please post it (just not the bengali angle — that basically amounts to bengali bashing)

hmm.. If Gandhi/Congress was not important, why should Cripps be sent on a mission to convince Gandhi/Congress in 1942 to support the war effort. Even assuming the ridiculous assertion that Brits were frightened by the bunch of INA folks (who never had any major military victory, and was not even trusted by the japanese to be battle worthy), why would they still want to convince Gandhi/Congress after 1945 when they have supposedly won the war. I agree they wanted to cut the losses and run. Why would they think Gandhi/Congress/Muslim league are the parties to be consulted in handing over the power, they could have just handed over the power to the lackeys who have supported the Brits during the war time. The reason is because they knew that the people power was behind the Congress.

Moreover we are not talking about what Attlee has written in his memoirs. I won’t rely on second hand opinion. You could as well believe that Gandhi raped his grand-niece Manu because it was written by someone who was told this story by the milkman who supplied milk to Gandhi. Did Mahatma Gandhi sleep with virgins?

The important point to remember is that the attainment of freedom was not a single step process that happened in Aug 15,1947. It is a culmination of around 40 years of serious efforts on the parts of various leaders spearheaded by the Congress movement. Gandhi played a key role in that. There was no WW-II or INA in 1909/1919/1935 where the Brits were forced to relinquish power in certain areas. Why do you think that happened?. I think the most important effort on Gandhi’s part was to convince Ambedkar in the early 30s, that “separate electorate” for “Depressed classes” (called “Dalits” now) is not in their interest. He knew that how the earlier “separate electorate” scheme of the brits had resulted in the great success of the British “divide and rule” plan. Who knows if he had not carried out his fast to pressure Ambedkar we could have ended up with a “Dalitstan” like “Pakistan”.

Dizzydesi has said in #67.

Gandhi’s contribution to the independence of India was probably as much as Janet Jackson’s contribution to the success of the Jackson five.

If you believe this you could as well believe Gandhi is a rapist.

Atlee served throughout WWII as deputy to Churchill and in political charge of the home and civil aspects of running the British nation in time of war. As an active and committed member of the war cabinet, he would know well the value of the Indian war effort; the INA was a worrying threat to that effort, whereas Gandhi was apparently not. In 1945 Atlee was suddenly in charge of a country virtually broke and of an empire no longer at war; home affairs were all-important. Cutting the ties with India was inevitable and easily resolved upon. The job was delegated to Mountbatten specifically so that it could be completed expeditiously and with minimum input from the beleaguered British government.

Atlee was not a stupid man, but I think he was never very interested in the British Empire per se and he never had reason to understand Gandhi’s role and achievements.

In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’.”

I’d not take this as an evidence, It is not even from Attlee directly, through a second hand voice and that too from a Bengali. I won’t give much weightage. If Attlee has written so in his memoirs, we can atleast give a consideration. But I’d doubt if that’s the case. First Subhas Chandra Bose was long dead and his INA was completely defeated. So to claim that it shook the foundation of the British empire is a bit exaggerated.

Violence would not have worked at all in India. I was just wondering if there is an example of a colony that threw out the imperialists by violence which is as diverse as India. the one example that comes to my mind is of Afghanistan where once the Soviets were expelled, the different ethnic groups turned against each other. Add to that the existing caste/religious divisions in India. Thank Gandhi/Congress for non-violence.

Naah, Churchill had Gandhi sized up perfectly After all, he had already pulled that one on FDR previously