Did India get independence or was it given by British?

- Kangana Ranaut's right to interrupt discussion of India's history of independence should not be allowed

- Vividha-Bhaven Kutchi

- An attempt to systematically undermine the influence of Gandhiji and his movement?

- Gandhiji and his movement did not only influence us, Subhash Chandra Bose and the revolt of Indian soldiers were increasing our concern: Lord Attlee

Kangana Ranaut has again created controversy by calling India's independence in the 19th century as a beggar. There is no doubt that this is a gross insult to Mahatma Gandhiji, Sardar Patel and all the leaders who have joined the non-violent movement from Nehru to the freedom struggle and sacrificed their lives in the freedom struggle. Something is too much. '

However, some Indian and British historians have provided documentary books, research and interviews for the 19th independence, stressing that the independence granted to India on August 15, 19 by the British was not in defiance of Gandhiji's 'Leave India' movement. Also gave for various other reasons. Kangana's use of vulgar words like 'begging' is not flattering but it can be said that when the British felt that India was a burden to us now, they could not afford to rule financially and the lower echelons of the British army in India. When they were out of control, they were forced to decide to leave India. One link to the non-violent movement for independence may be needed if the British were to come to such a historic destination but the rest of the links were pushed into the ark of time.

India got independence because of Hitler and not Gandhiji!

Dr. Sushmit Kumar has written an exploratory book published by Bookersage of America. He has studied the independence of India and the cycles that set in motion before it. Hitler gave birth to World War II and Germany challenged Britain. The war hit the economies of Britain and France to such an extent that even after the end of World War II, Britain was anxious to get its country to sit, when it seemed impossible for them to handle the countries that had colonial rule. Even in this way, they had made as much milk as they could milk the cow. Invaluable treasures have taken place in the treasury of the country which ruled over the countries which could be called plunder. With the rule prevailing for centuries, the atmosphere in the country was becoming more and more explosive. The resentment that Britain should focus on after World War II was also rife among British citizens. The countries under British rule could not even pay salaries to their armies or officers in the country. Dr. Sushmita believes that India got independence because of Hitler.

After World War II, Britain relinquished its monopoly power over all countries

After World War II, Britain lost its grip on the monarchy and rolled up its rugs in Jordan 19, Palestine and Myanmar 12, Egypt 15 and Malaysia 12. France was in a similar predicament. Similarly the Netherlands had their Dutch East Indies Company bases in different countries. They left the coast of Indonesia on the 19th. The Indians established the independence granted by Gandhiji and his leaders but none of the six countries under British rule except India claimed that our leaders or revolutionaries had bitten the teeth of the British and forced the British to liberate us. There is no such chapter in the history of any country. It can be said that if World War II had not taken place, the British would have extended their rule for another 30 years.

As Gandhiji's influence and grip waned, so did freedom

British historians PJ Cain and AG Hopkins have noted that after World War II, Britain's plight and the loosening desire and grip of their now-ruling Indian bureaucrats and Britain's India-based army, which was 80 per cent Indian, The British rulers were shocked when Indian troops openly revolted in the navy in the 19th century. On the 19th, Viceroy Wavell sent a message to London that it no longer seemed practical to govern India economically or under military control. Not a single British viceroy or historian has mentioned that we are helpless against the freedom struggle. Had it not been for World War II, the British would not have left India for another decade and Gandhiji's movement would have continued as it had been allowed by the British for three decades. Dr. Sushmit Kumar writes that Gandhiji's popularity and influence was declining only after 150. Gandhiji, Nehru and other leaders like Gokhale, Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Motilal Nehru, Dada Bhai Navroji and C.R. The non-violent struggle for independence continued with the five-year-old slogan of 'Leave India' and the leaders established it as their victory. History is written according to the saying 'history is in his hands'. The British demarcated the borders of India, drew maps, divided the country and prepared the transfer documents. This whole process proves that the British left India on their terms, with their malice and in their time. So much so that Gandhiji and the Congress wanted the British to set January 8 as India's Independence Day. Because on that day in 1903 a resolution was taken for 'Purna Swaraj' for the movement against the British. However, to commemorate Lord Mountbatten's surrender to Japan on 15 August, almost ending World War II under his colonel, Dharar set the same date as if he were making a cruel mockery of India. There are so many reasons why it can be said that the British decided to get rid of us and World War II was responsible for whatever the circumstances.

The low impact of the movement behind our decision: Lord Attlee

Clement Attlee was the Prime Minister of Britain at the time of India's independence. In the preface of 'History of Bengal' written by Ramesh Chandra Majumdar, Justice P.C. Chakraborty, who was also acting governor at the time, wrote that The Lord Attlee had spent two days at the Governor's Palace in Calcutta on the 19th during the process of liberating India. Are you taking such a decision even if there were no circumstances to leave India? '

Lord Attlee, while referring to the background of World War II, further emphasized that the Indian Army and Navy had formed a rebellion against British rule. We also did not want to bring troops from Britain to India who had not yet recovered after World War II and create a violent atmosphere. Even if we do, Subhash Chandra Bose's covert activities and the mood of his army were increasingly influencing the minds of Indian citizens and especially the Indian Army serving in the British Army to such an extent that we could no longer afford such conflicts and deployments.

Majumdar then directly asked Attlee, "What was the impact of Gandhiji and his movement in his decision to leave India?"

Lord Attlee twisted both lips, bringing a sarcastic naughty smile, and said the word slowly, "me..ni..m..l"

Dictators like Gandhiji Stalin: Arvind Ghosh

Subhash Chandra Bose and his strategy for independence influenced not only the patriotic citizens but also the Congress leaders and activists. Seemed safe.

Bose was deeply disappointed when Subhash Chandra Bose, during his first visit to Gandhiji Jode in 191, asked, "How do you make India independent?" There was no definite plan.

The citizens of India also got this. That is why Subhash Chandra Bose was elected as the 13th President. Members of Congress were ready to continue him as president for a second term. The second term also outlined a more rapid civil disobedience movement and other programs. Gandhiji did not like Subhash Chandra Bose becoming president again and he fielded Sitaramya against Subhash Chandra in the elections. Despite being Gandhiji's candidate, Sitaramya was defeated. Gandhiji stated with frustration and indignation that 'Sitaramya's defeat is my defeat.'

After that there was such an internal quarrel against Subhash Chandra in his second term that Subhash Chandra Bose resigned midway.

Arvind Ghosh made a sensational comment that "Gandhiji is a dictator like Hitler but not like Stalin." They decide their resolution, decision or choice before a legal meeting of the party is called. No democracy that is visible to the people is possible under the influence of Gandhiji.

The fact that Sardar Patel was named after the majority of the Congress members as the first Prime Minister indicates that Arvind Kejriwal had left an arrow for Sardar Patel to withdraw his name.

Subhash Chandra Bose and his movements, the changed mood of India and the army because of him, would push Britain into a deeper abyss after World War II.

Had Hitler not started World War II, would India have become independent in 1918? India's independence process was shaped by Britain's will and timing, just as Britain's rule was overthrown without movement or civil war or uprising. Gandhiji and Subhash Chandra Bose will forever be at the center of the discussion of India's history of independence.

Let Kangana Ranaut, Akhilesh Yadav and the leaders of the political parties make a statement and let us dig up and solve the 'history or pages'. Admittedly, citizens have also jumped into their trap on social media, targeting the political parties and the media.

The article does not underestimate the great contribution of Mahatma Gandhi but gives an angle on how some historians and thesis writers have modified the independence of India.

A large section of the country sees the history presented in this way as a conspiracy to systematically defame Gandhiji. Controversy continues over Gandhiji's relationship with Sardar, Nehru and Bose, or the fact that Bhagat Singh did not make a special effort at the time of his execution.

Gandhiji's supporters also say that there is no recorded evidence as to whether Lord Attlee's comment actually took place. In this way, the dialogues or comments made in the name of the dead are always put in the books.

As the years go by, Gandhiji is emerging more and more as an incomparable and inspiring talent for the world.