[anon291]

People greatly misunderstand the Indian independence movement. The early Indian activists merely wanted India to have a devolved legislature like present-day Scotland and Wales, or like Canada and Australia used to have. It was relatively late that anyone really wanted independence. I think many of them still wanted to be a constituent state of the UK.

People always forget that Gandhi's first actions as a 'nationalist' were attempting to raise an army to fight on behalf of Britain. The idea that the Indian nationalists wanted to be a new nation from the get go is a modern day invention.

[paxys]

Call it freedom or independence or autonomy or dominion or whatever else you want, it doesn’t change the underlying point. Indians wanted it, and Britain denied it. In fact they denied it quite emphatically and violently. Eventually the outcome was decided by geopolitical realities, not a bunch of people shouting slogans.

[anon291]

Britain did not deny it and was actively working towards allowing self-rule in India the entire time. You seem to be saying that Britain denied India independence while at the same time saying Britain allowed an independent India. The two views are fundamentally at odds.

[bryanrasmussen]

arguably the American colonies wanted the same thing. What is it with these colonizers that they don't want that!?

[anon291]

It is simply not true to the same degree. The American colonies believed the King of England had violated their rights as Englishmen, Indian independence activists simply wanted Indians to have the same rights as other citizens of the UK and subjects of the British crown. The Indian independence movement started as a mirror of the Irish self-rule movement.

[somenameforme]

The 'Americans' felt that they were being treated as second class citizens with no meaningful political representation on their behalf. Hence rallying cries like 'no taxation without representation' which originated, at least in modern times, in Ireland.

[anon291]

The difference is that American colonials could return to England and have representation, while Indians could not, so no there is a distinct difference in what was being asked for.

[bryanrasmussen]

hardly anything is ever true to the same degree, and so saying something is simply not true to the same degree seems oxymoronic, in that if it is not true to the same degree implies that it is somewhat true to a lesser degree.

[anon291]

Let me be more clear.

There is a racial component to it that the American settlers did not have.

Gandhi and the original nationalists were English barristers who spoke English, believed in English institutions, were educated in England, and saw themselves as Englishmen and loyal subjects of the King.

That is how they've always seen themselves and how the average educated Indian saw themselves.

Gandhi's experiences in South Africa made him realize that no amount of education was going to make the English treat him the same simply because his skin made him not blend in. Gandhi is not the only person to see that. Lee yuan kew thought the same.

His first reaction was thinking he should prove Indian loyalty to the crown and this would win him points.

When that didn't work, he threw away all his tailored English suits and adopted (by show... It was all show) the habits of a Hindu holy man to lead his movements.

One can debate the efficacy or whatever but there was no great resistance to English rule. Many old Indians are neutral about it. That generation is dying though and the younger ones have a mythologized past.

So yes the degrees in this situation really mattered. The American settlers were seeking to forge a new nation with new institutions. The Indian nationalists just wanted to perpetuate English ones but were unable to do so under English rule.

[adityaathalye]

What you describe, and the way you describe it, reads to me like a progressive application of the Saam, Daam, Dand, Bheda principle, attributed to the late great diplomat Chanakya.

Saam: First, they tried reason.

Daam: Then they demanded a price (Salt Satyagraha to initiate the Civil Disobedience Movement).

Danda: Then they moved to reject the regime entirely (Quit India). At a time when the colonial power was literally fighting on multiple fronts, in World War Two.

Bhed: Then they helped to throw them out, and attempt to build a whole new political identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saam_Daam_Dand_Bheda