Indian Independence- The Untold Story

The night of 14^th/15^th August 1947 saw the birth of a nation, which later would emerge as one of superpower, world could never ignore. The British Raj that ruled the country for 200 years, were they fool enough not to predict such a potential? Then what was the reason that gave freedom to the country in 1947? Not many know that the actual time decided by the Raj to free India was somewhere in 1948 but we got our freedom ahead of this, why?

When you think about the Heroes of the Indian Freedom, what is the first name that comes to your mind? If you go by the textbooks of History that is being taught in schools and still trust their untrustworthy facts, the figure that would flash in front of your eyes would be of a person, scantily dressed in a Dhoti, wearing a round eyeglass and with two women supporting him from either side, Mohan Das Karamchand Gandhi. He is called Father of Nation, a title, which was first coined by none other than Subhash Chandra Bose, a person who had had huge disagreements with Gandhi and had chosen separate path. Not many know that there is no specific official document of Govt. Of India that confers the title of Father of Nation on Gandhi as per the assistant director of the National Archives Jayaprabha Ravindran, “As per search among the public records in the National Archives of India, there are no specific documents on the information being sought by you.” This was the answer given in reply of a RTI query of a 10 year old girl.

If you ignore the Text Books and follow the series of incidents that happened before Indian Independence, Gandhi’s contribution to Indian Independence was ‘minimal’. It’s not my word.  Chief justice P.B. Chakrabarty of Calcutta High Court, who had also served as the acting Governor of West Bengal in India, disclosed the following in a letter addressed to the publisher of Dr. R.C. Majumdar's book A History of Bengal. The Chief Justice wrote:

“You have fulfilled a noble task by persuading Dr. Majumdar to write this history of Bengal and publishing it ... In the preface of the book Dr. Majumdar has written that he could not accept the thesis that Indian independence was brought about solely, or predominantly by the non-violent civil disobedience movement of Gandhi. When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee (British Prime-Minister, when India got independence), who had given us independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor's palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him was that since Gandhi's "Quit India" movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave? In his reply, Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi's influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee's lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, ‘MINIMAL’.”

However, I would also mention that it’s not completely right to disregard Gandhi’s contributions completely. He was the person responsible to unite the freedom struggle, which before his accession as a national leader was scattered and unnoticed, but except for the Non-Cooperation movement, which could have earned independence, others failed to create any panic in the British Raj as far as complete Independence is concerned. I also respect his philosophies and the way he lived his life. It requires sheer determination and sacrifices to lead from the front the way he did for many years.

But, if not Gandhi and his various movements, who and what were the reasons behind our independence.

If I say the person responsible for Indian Independence was Hitler, what would be your reaction. Confused, dejected, angry... well! Read on.

Hitler with Subhash Chandra Bose

The only reason of our freedom I believe is pure economics. For the British Raj, India was not a profitable venture any more. After the Second World War, Britain’s economy was crumbling, they were finding it difficult to manage their own country, forget about managing their colonies like India. And in India, multiple factors were against the Raj which were making the things worse. Second World War was the outcome of Hitler’s ambition, and it was British Indian Army’s participation in the Second World War that implanted the seed of Indian Independence. 

The press note of Court
 Martial of INA soldiers with False allegations

The large force of British Indian Army was asked to join the world war with the promise that Indian Independence will be seriously considered. But even after the end of World War there was no sign from the Raj to keep the promise which fuelled the unrest among the Army. The unrest rose when the trial of the INA soldiers captured in Burma Campaign started in Nov-Dec, 1945. The first of these trials was of Shah Nawaz Khan, Prem Sahgal and Gurubaksh Singh Dhillon, which was conducted for the first time in Red Fort, thus it is called as Red Fort Trial. This didn’t go down well with the Army, since the INA soldier were also British Indian Army personnel before joining INA. 

The unrest in the Indian Army came out in the form of various mutinies. The first major mutiny was carried on by the Royal Air force in January 1946, which started in Karachi and spread across the country. The Air Force mutiny was followed by the Royal Indian Navy mutiny (also called the Royal Indian Revolt or Bombay Mutiny) in which 78 out of a total of 88 ships were mutinied. It started with revolt of the Sailors of Royal Indian Navy on board ship and shore establishments at Bombay harbour on 18 February 1946. The action of the mutineers was supported by demonstrations, which included a one-day general strike in Bombay. The strike spread to other cities, and was supported by the Royal Indian Air Force and local police forces as well. The revolt lasted for a few days but it was sufficient to cause panic in the British Government.

MS Kumaon involved in Bombay Mutiny

Bombay Mutiny

Can you run a country when the military and police are not supporting you? No, it’s not possible. But, neither did the British nor the Politicians of our own country were ready to show that these revolts were the reason behind our freedom. During its meeting in December the same year, the general feeling of the British Cabinet was that the withdrawal from India need not appear to be forced upon them by their weakness nor to be the first step in the dissolution of the Empire. On the contrary, this action must be shown to be the logical conclusion, which they welcomed, of a policy followed by successive Governments for many years. Thus even though they were defeated by our soldier’s unrest, they promoted the politicians as the reason behind our independence.

As I said earlier, India was supposed to get its freedom in 1948 but the British economy crumbled even further. Anymore non-cooperation from the Indian would have dented their economy even further. They didn’t have option but to free us.

As Atlee had said, Gandhi’s contribution to our Freedom was Minimal. The support of Atlee’s remark also comes from by Fenner Brockway, political secretary of the Independent Labor Party of England, “There were three reasons why India became free. One, the Indian people were determined to gain independence. Two, was the revolt by the Indian Navy. Three, three Britain did not want to estrange India, which was a market and source of foodstuffs for her.”

We term Gandhi the father of the nation. His birth anniversary is a National Holiday, I personally like Holidays, but somewhere by dong this, we indirectly disrespect many brave souls who fought and died only because of one cause, seeing the tricolour fly in Independent India, but the sad part is that each of those deaths were condemned by Gandhi. Was Gandhi or his philosophies bigger than the life of freedom fighters or the larger goal, our independence?

I am not a historian and cannot vouch for the correctness of any of the facts mentioned here, but have a look at a few examples, which are spoken in closed circle and you decide yourself.

1. The first highly successful freedom movement was the Non-Cooperation movement, it is widely believed that the British Government was almost broken but Gandhi abruptly withdrew the movement because of Chauri Chaura incident. Why? Was his own philosophies greater than the Country’s cause.
2. If Gandhi wanted, he would have saved the life of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, and Rajguru, but he didn’t do so. Why? Is it because these freedom fighters had done things against his philosophies?
3. Gandhi also condemned the soldiers involved in the Royal Air Force Revolt and Bombay Mutiny. Why? Is it because he wanted to prove himself as the only person responsible for the independence?
4. Gandhi’s disagreement with Subhash Bose is well known, but it was Subhash Bose’s army that dented the British Govt and ultimately won us freedom. In spite Gandhi and others had agreed to handover Subhash Bose if he would be found alive to the British Govt. even after our Independence. Why?
5. 1946, in the election for the post of Congress Presidency Sardar Patel’s name was proposed by 13 out of 16 states representatives. The Congress Presidents post was crucial at that point of time because the elected president would ultimately become the first Prime Minister of the country. Sardar Patel even after winning the votes withdrew his name at the behest of Gandhi, because Gandhi wanted to see Nehru as the first Prime Minister. Was that really a work of Mahatma? Wasn’t that favouritism? Had Gandhi not done something like this, the future of India in which we are living today would have been completely different.

There are many, but there is no point in speaking about them. Stories like this will remain an untold story forever and the sacrifices of those brave soldiers are already forgotten. In a country where a surname is bigger than the larger interest of the country, the history would continue to be twisted in the way it suits the political requirements.

Note: All the facts and pictures used in this post are sourced from internet, their authenticity is debatable. I personally may not be able to vouch for their accuracy.