Gandhi vs British Empire

Discuss the significance of Gandhi. A lawyer from India who passed the bar in England. Goes to South Africa and defies the Government.

Originally posted by Mughaal Discuss why, although the Europeans are "permitted" to enforce White Mans Burden, it isnt allowed for others (Chinese, Indians, Persians, etc) to do it.

Those three non-European nations all engage in actual and cultural imperialism also. Nice try, but pompous feelings of cultural superiority are not limited to Westerners. The Chinese, for example, have always seen themselves as the "Middle Kingdom" - with other nations regarded as increasingly barbaric the further away they were. Failure to conduct cultural imperialism by these non-Western nations has more to do with limitations in their own power rather than an absence of racism or absence of feelings of cultural superiority.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by Mughaal Discuss why, although the Europeans are "permitted" to enforce White Mans Burden, it isnt allowed for others (Chinese, Indians, Persians, etc) to do it. Those three non-European nations all engage in actual and cultural imperialism also. Nice try, but pompous feelings of cultural superiority are not limited to Westerners. The Chinese, for example, have always seen themselves as the "Middle Kingdom" - with other nations regarded as increasingly barbaric the further away they were. Failure to conduct cultural imperialism by these non-Western nations has more to do with limitations in their own power rather than an absence of racism or absence of feelings of cultural superiority.

White Mans Burden is about spreading civilization. But when do they leave? The Indians ordered the British out, but they didnt respect it. In some views of Indian Historians the first war of Independence was in 1857 culminating to 1947.

Edited by Mughaal - 15-Dec-2007 at 08:26

Gandhi did play a major role in the liberation of India. More than anything else, Gandhi permitted Indians to stand up to the greatest power in the world and achieve independence.

It may be that his method was so relatively unusual that today we refuse to believe that nonviolence can topple injustice and empires.

Nonviolence is very pragmatic. It works a lot more than violent revolutions, and the gains obtained through massive people power's movement like those in India and the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. have a tendency of having lasting legacies.

How does it work? To its bare elements, real power lies on individuals. The prohibition against hurting your opponents grants the moral high ground to the nonviolent movement. The third big element is that it makes the injustice very clear through demonstrations and other nonviolent strategies like consumer boycotts.

How do these work to topple down an empire? Easy: it brings up the costs of keeping it. An empire is a commercial venture connected with a great exercise of irrational megalomania from a nation and its leaders. Drive the cost of the empire high enough, add the moral injustice of the situation, and empires crumble.

Gandhi had been inflicting economic pain on England for most of his career in India. The cost of keeping the empire kept going up. The "kind" British empire facade was chipped again and again when nonviolent protesters where met with brutal repressions.

Some authors claim that India was a losing venture to Britain long before Gandhi showed up. Gandhi's strategies increased the price tag during his big campaigns, and the foreign cloths campaign was successful enough to hurt the bottom line of textile mills in England.

WWII played two key roles in India's independence: it economic cost of the war and Hitler's negative moral standard. For if European countries didn't enjoy being puppets of Germany, other people obviously didn't feel that way about Britain ruling over other countries. It is especially difficult for British people to support empire when its history is drenched on the ideas of liberty.

There was also a lucky component to the independence of India. I have heard that Churchill had not intentions of ever given up India, but he wasn't in power when the decision had to be made.

The biggest contribution that Gandhi made to the world was to prove how to wage nonviolent campaigns. If it could be done against the British empire, probably the greatest one of modern history, it surely can be done with everyone.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by Mughaal I meant if China goes to Tibet it is injustice. If America invades Iraq, Americans call it "liberation".   What is the psychology? Well firstly Tibet is a part of China and has no official or unofficial sovereignty. And this is over 50 years after the Chinese invasion. Iraq is not the same exactly so we must be careful when making comparisons. Secondly, you make assumptions about how people see the two situations. A majority of people in China consider Tibet to be another province which they rightfully reincorporated into the nation after the Civil War was finished. From newpolls I have seen, a majority of Americans do not want to be in Iraq and do not believe the Iraq war was altruistically motivated.

What is known is the British were brutal and ruthless. Coincidentally the British Empire will remain an imprint in the books of History along with Spain and Russia as the rulers of a sophisticated, rich, vibrant and diverse civilization as Hindustan.

Edited by Mughaal - 16-Dec-2007 at 01:32

Hi, Omar,

I see that you don't like Gandhi . He is hard to understand right away. I read some of his writings, I don't think much of what he says, and months later I see a situation in the modern world and Gandhi's prescription is eerily correct. Read his work and learn about his work and take time to digest it. He is a lot more pragmatic that one would think.

Now to your points. First, Gandhi said many times that his method didn't mean that people wouldn't die. In fact he said that people had to be willing to die without violently defending themselves to get their point across.

Second, the ethnic problems that arose at the end of colonialism were problems that existed for a long time, and transitional moments like the end of British rule bring these kinds of issues up. When the old regime falls, formerly subjugated ethnic groups understand that this is their chance to improve their lot.

There was no Gandhi in the ex-Yugoslavia, yet the end of the Soviet block brought forth ethnic tensions. There is no Gandhi in Iraq either, and the ethnic tensions came to the surface after the fall of Saddam.

So, even if India didn't have a Gandhi, ethnic problems would have occurred. In India, if I remember correctly, the problem was that the Muslim leadership was afraid that they would be subjugated to the Hindu majority. Gandhi or no Gandhi, this would have been an issue.


I am sorry that I have to disagree with you on the following point: the British Empire, not India, was the greatest empire of modern history. India may have been the source of power, but it wasn't the power itself.

Following your reasoning, Latin America, not Spain, was a strong power, and the Mediterranean, not Rome, was the greatest Western power in history. As you can see, it is nonsensical.


Gandhi played a major role in the fight for independence. Thanks to Gandhi, a long-term independent movement could exist and develop over decades. Why? Because of its nonviolent nature. Violent revolts against the English often ended with the leaders dead and a violent political repression would follow destroying all of the organizational work done before the revolt. Whatever movement existed before would come to an end.

Also, thanks to Gandhi's nonviolent method, a whole generation of leaders, who before Gandhi didn't know how to mobilize masses as political power, learned this very important skill. Again, because you can imprison nonviolent leaders but not execute them for sedition, their influence didn't end with their deaths.

So Gandhi's work helped to create the conditions that made it possible to have the moment in history where the British government decided that it was better to grant independence than to keep colonial power.

Everything happened to work in the right way. Had Churchill still been in power, he would have probably engaged in the war against Indian independence. It would have been long and bloody. And the British could have probably successfully play the different factions against each other as they had been doing for more than a century and a half by then.

For that was the real point of his quote: if India is the most important part of the empire, it is then most important to fight to keep it.


Now, why exactly are you against nonviolence? What irks you about it? Or is it just Gandhi that gets on your nerves?

So the real reasons Hindustan gained its independence?

1. British Empire tired out during WW2.
2. Hindustan became financially unstable and increasing ungovernable.
3. Hindustan became costly to keep.
4. Riots, protests, assasinations carried out by the Hindustanis against British authorities.

Now lets discuss Mrs Mountbatten's relationship with Nehru.

Edited by Mughaal - 16-Dec-2007 at 16:29

Hugo,