Maybe without Gandhi there would have been another model of decolonisation and maybe—very maybe—it might have been better, so we need to take that into consideration, and think that decolonisation might work better than we know?
I doubt it. The British negotiated with Gandhi’s crew instead of the rest of the revolutionaries because they could save face that way by not having to fold to violent methods. Gandhi provided the release valve for the pressure built up by the violent factions. If he hadn’t been there, I think it would have gone much worse.
EDIT: I’m not a historian or anything. This could be wrong.
If he hadn’t been there, I think it would have gone much worse.
I think so too. But it’s possible there’s a model of decolonisation that we missed, and that they might have been able to find without Gandhi. Possible but not likely; unlikely but not impossible.
I doubt it. The British negotiated with Gandhi’s crew instead of the rest of the revolutionaries because they could save face that way by not having to fold to violent methods. Gandhi provided the release valve for the pressure built up by the violent factions. If he hadn’t been there, I think it would have gone much worse.
EDIT: I’m not a historian or anything. This could be wrong.
I think so too. But it’s possible there’s a model of decolonisation that we missed, and that they might have been able to find without Gandhi. Possible but not likely; unlikely but not impossible.
There are probably better examples that that, if you are looking for other decolonisation methods.