"....even without 2nd World War, India
would have still attained independence...when the 2nd WW began, India already
had almost attained Independence"- JawaharLal Nehru. Kindly justify how
India would've got Independence without the context of WW2.
If's
& But's.... these are part of interpretation/comparision w.r.t history
& personalities. First let me support Nehru by quoting the historical facts. If not at 1857 atleast by 1885 (INC) the
movement for Independence has begun. Though the concept of swaraj ept on
evolving, the basic motive of this movement was against imperialism. Now u have
to the following facts to prove the view of Nehru - Swadeshi movement which
followed Partition of bengal; 1909 Act, 1919 Act - which followed due to the
demand for representation in legislature by Indians; Non - Cooperation
movement; Protest against Simon commission; Civil Disobedience movement;
revolutionary movement (Azad, Bhagat singh,...); 1935 Act almost handed over
everything atleast at provicial level. Now coming to the other view - WW2
proved/helped India in its freedom. British, and for that matter any
imperialist nation, wanted to prolong its hold on their colony. So in our case
they were prolonging by giving something on piece-meal basis (1909, 1919,
Acts). they gave something substantial by 1935 Act but thats not out of love,
but by the time Hitler & Mussolini have attained legendary status by
bringing neighbouring countries under their powers, even countries like France
were facing elimination threat from Germany; so these imperial nations wanted
support (men & material) and were ready to sacrifice colonies for their
survival. with d help of these facts U build up based on the question/words/marks.
Sir correct me if am wrong... Churchill was
indeed obstacle for independence... He purposefully insisted for Indian
soldiers for WW2 which many supported and opposed also.
Of
course. As i said above he wanted support (men & material) but without losing
their hold on us.
No comments:
Post a Comment