Gandhi did not ‘free’ India, how could he? He could not even free himself. As a consequence a fairy tale (produced out of the Western imagination), depicts this British educated lawyer as somehow ‘freeing’ India through his spiritual efforts. Think about this logically, a living human being on this material plane, used the power of a hidden spiritual dimension to oust the British imperialist forces from India, just two years after hundreds of thousands in the British Indian Army (and British Army), won a brutal war over the imperialist Japanese who were supported by a number of Indian intellectuals (Chandra Bose being arguably the most influential), that viewed the non-White Japanese forces as attempting to ‘liberate’ the non-White Indian people from the yoke of British imperialism. This led to about ten thousand Indians (including Sikhs) joining Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army, although this outfit was of little operational use. Chandra Bose was opposed to Western imperialism AND Soviet Communism. Being an ally of Adolf Hitler, Chandra Bose wrote a sad eulogy when Nazi Germany surrendered to Allied forces in May, 1945, using touching words describing his relationship with the fascists. On the other hand, (and this explains why Gandhi was chosen by the British as a means to explain and justify ‘Independence’ in a mysterious manner), called upon all Indians to support the British imperialists, stating that as Indians had ‘benefitted’ from British Rule(?) they had a moral obligation to support the British war effort. After the death of Gandhi in 1948, biographies started to appear suggesting that this Westernised Indian was somehow the epitome of a ‘traditional’ Indian, and that his ‘special relationship’ with god had resulted in the British government in London being ‘moved’ (in a mysterious way) to ‘free’ India from being a British colony. Interestingly, many Indian authors have produced alternative biographies of Gandhi giving a very different view of this individual. He was not a Socialist, but was thoroughly bourgeois in his attitudes. He wanted an India that was just as bourgeois as the capitalist UK, but which was seen as ‘equal’ by the Westerners. The first has been achieved, but second will never be achieved under capitalism. The following are two posts I made on my Facebook page covering this topic:
The British Labour Party granted India independence in 1947 so that the money saved in administering the colony could be channelled back into the UK Mainland to fund the Welfare State and NHS (which were only extended to the colony of Northern Ireland). India became a second-rate capitalist State and a third-rate democracy that sided with US Imperialism and opposed the USSR and Communist China. Today, India is run by the fascist BJP and masses of ordinary people remain illiterate and destitute whilst upper class (caste) Indians continue to mimic their former European overlords.
As a balance to my previous post criticising ‘capitalist’ India (since 1947), and fascist India (since 2014), I would like to draw attention to the Indian Communists and Socialist who work tirelessly for the well-being of others, and agree with may assessment (more or less), as we are fighting the common enemy of capitalism and bourgeois exploitation of the Indian people. Indeed, within certain areas of India (notably Kerala and Kolkata) have elected regional Communist governments. What I do not accept is that a religious fundamentalist (eventual murdered by members of the religion he represented, ‘freed’ India through spiritual effort. This is a bourgeois sham that feeds as much into British arrogance as it does Indian (religious) ignorance. Churchill was opposed to freeing India in anyway, but the British Labour Party, partly out of a vague adherence to the anti-imperialism of the left, and partly (the greater part) out of financial practicality. Without getting rid of India as an expensive colony, there could have been no NHS or Welfare State in the UK. What it comes down to is what you wish to believe – a religious fairy tale or the machinations of pragmatic politics.