<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="1" > introduction:</h1>
India's history was highly fragmented, with the British first crushing the Maratha Confederation in the south and then the Mughal Empire in the north before integrating a unified British India. In Indian history, Hinduism was the tradition, the majority, while muslims were foreign and politically strong minorities.
Therefore, India's high degree of local autonomy and the antagonism between the two religions are the result of India's own history, but it is the British who have given India the concept of a modern unified nation-state. Finally, the most important point is that Britain did not have enough motivation to divide India, he hoped that India as a whole would join the British Commonwealth, have a more unified and powerful India to balance the Soviet Union, and the partition of India and Pakistan was not the first plan proposed by Mountbatten, but the two sides of the previous unification plan did not negotiate each other to lead to the final partition plan.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="4">01</h1>
The biggest difference between india (congress party) and Pakistan (Muslim league) is that the congress party wants a strong centralized India, which is good to show its fists in the post-war international arena, while the stronger minority Muslim league wants a confederation system with more local decentralization and a weaker central government, which is the fundamental reason for the partition of India and Pakistan, and the failure of the two sides to reach a compromise on this point is the direct reason for the partition, and on this issue, the British also have no motivation to intervene.
There are 150 million Muslims in India, no less than in Pakistan, indicating that the coexistence of the two religions can also be maintained, and the unification of India was once an opportunity.
The Congress Party initially (before the 1930s) represented all of India, but Gandhi was too wishful thinking, too ignorant of the Muslim issue, did not take targeted measures against the growing Jinnah, and did not strive to win muslims (without recognizing the community and independence of Muslims, and the number of Muslims in the party was not proportional), led to the growth of the Muslim League and the division of Hindu nationalism.
After that, India still had the opportunity to create a confederation system, and the Muslim region was equivalent to Manchuria and Mongolia in the Qing Dynasty, but Nehru always made no concessions in style, vowing to build a unified and powerful modern nation of India (right or wrong), which led to a final partition.
Gandhi's role is too low, it is the universal arch of Anglo-American, non-violent non-cooperation is of no use, and Gandhi belongs to great Indian nationalism, advocating the restoration of Indian culture and the preservation of the Indian caste system. India's independence was the result of a compromise between the revolutionaries of the Indian Congress party and the feudal royal British government. Human history is vast, and I have never seen a politician who gained independence or won a political victory by self-harm.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="10">02</h1>
Gandhi's followers are basically feudal aristocrats within India, Gandhi on the other hand is on behalf of the nobility, the British government in order to maintain and win over the feudal landlords, only to leave Gandhi a life, Gandhi wife has several.
Although Gandhi studied in Britain, Gandhi is a typical indian intellectual, the advanced political system, advanced culture, science and technology of the West have not learned at all, that is, to return to China to sing a high note. In the later period, in order to promote universal values, Gandhi's status was suddenly raised to the world. Gandhi in India, Mandela in South Africa, the country and the people. First of all, Gandhi was a believer in Hinduism, believed in reincarnation and recognized the caste system, an Old Indian with an English education.
To say that Gandhi was a great figure is basically not supported by facts, whether it is the salt march or the hunger strike, this kind of gentle resistance is to face the uncontrollable effect of a declining second-rate empire, but it is nothing more than the cost of quasi-will.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="14">03</h1>
Gandhi did not pursue the modernization of the country, and in his bones he did not agree that the Dalits belonged to the modern sense of people who could fight for their rights, Gandhi believed that Hinduism was the core modern view of the Indian state, and suppressed industrialization in disguise, and the West did not praise him.
The radicals were solved by the British, the moderates had no influence, the British had to withdraw with dignity, the Indians had to make a grand appearance, and Gandhi was chosen under the balance of interests of all parties. Indians call him Mahatma is not excessive, Hindus appeared on the scene to crush a certain believer in the surrounding area, and even reached the forbidden area, so Westerners call Gandhi Mahatma, it is also in their interests, in the eyes of Chinese he is not a few, but in the eyes of Indian capitalists, European and American politicians and others, he is the perfect archway.
Gandhi first gave India a high point of non-violence, India is peace-loving, morally speaking, other countries should obey India's ideas, especially when there is a dispute with India, followed by the treatment of industrialization he never takes the enhancement of national strength as the first goal, he imagines That India is a country with Hinduism as a glue, the industrialization of changing production relations will shake the foundation of India's unification, and many of India's strange remarks are in line with Gandhi's main idea.
Gandhi's tragedy is that the ideas of the second half of his life were almost always against the trend of history, that is, against industrialization and political religion, and either of these two points, it is difficult for the glued state to rise. A man like Gandhi would have been a truly perfect saint in the Middle Ages, but he should not have appeared in modern society.