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 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

anon291 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.