If WW2 had not happen,Would've British still given India freedom?( Hypothetical)

Social Off-topic & Debates
1

As soon as WW2 ended. British were quickly looking the way out.

I even read how hurriedly maps were drawn with Lahore which was suppose to be given to India because of Hindu /Sikh majority . Was then decided to be given to Pakistan because they said we didn’t have one big city while India still got Calcutta( Kolkata) and Delhi.

That is just one example but if you look entire episode post WW2. It is very clear British were in hurry.

But until WW2. British never seemed to care about entertaining freedom for India. Atmost they were ready to ease some rules.

Yes there were struggles here and there and pressure was mounting but they have handled such pressure before also and could have easily dragged another few decades atleast IMO.

Gandhi with his non- violence was not exactly a effective tool imo. I am not dismissing his efforts completely but without violence it is only was helping British to keep dragging the idea of independence.

Netaji ofcourse was right in the game but he too could not gather much support as needed due to most people sticking to Gandhi’s idea. So he would have been sooner or later captured or killed.

So in a way I think Hitler coming and breaking the British Empire back was a blessing for us Indians.

What do you guys think?

2

Without having their back broken in ww2, they would have had no reason to relinquish india.

3

Exactly. So Again Hitler was God sent for India and many British colonies .

2 Likes
4

No. they wouldn’t have.

but in that case eventually, we would have had an armed revolution as gandhi’s popularity and influence was waning fast.

1 Like
5

And I feel sooner or later we would have been freed and by that time would have been in a better state than we are today.

See today we are still fighting for caste reservations and bs, language pressure what all that non-sense.

I think we would have been better in britishers hands.

6

Sometimes out of frustration from the system . Which is complete mess. I also feel at times maybe we would have been better in British hand and I can understand where this thought is coming.

But in reality. We would have not.

I mean see in our own country we have faced this… “ Dogs and Indians not allowed “.

Travelling in lower class public transports.

And I have not even started but this was so miserable way to live also in one’s own country.

7

It would have taken a decade or two coupled with armed rebellion to get the independence.
They would not have left India easily on their own as it was their cash cow.

8

I feel they would have crushed Arm rebellion specially with only small faction taking arms.

The idea of non - violence was main culprit in getting independence delayed.

That is my understanding.

9

We would have been standing next to some good european uk regions in terms of development minus bull-s!

10

Bhai..you really think they would have invested back in India’s infrastructure that much to bring it to Europe level.

Yes whatever they would have built would have not come crumbling down in matter of months. That I can agree with.

Infact some of British made bridges and roads are still standing with very little maintenance .

Where as Indian’s building infrastructure was crumbling in less than 6 months.

However, They would have only kept limited to their benefit.

Just like Railways was mainly for them to keep control and export resources by bringing them to the ports and other places..

11

Why not? You think they could have still kept us as their slaves in this era. They couldn’t had achieved anything doing so.

12

West has bombed plenty of countries and triggered regime changes to suit their interests from what i have heard. In geopolitics, almost everyone seems to be out for themselves. Self interest comes first.

I think its silly to expect other countries to do your job for you. I would definitely not want western/external control of India. Often they seem to prefer dictators too which is pretty hypocritical.

Funny observation - In past i have seen couple of times, that when India did well in some space missions, some ( hopefully minority) British news guys feel the pain. They start lecturing that India should be spending money for people welfare and that they(British) should stop sending money to India etc etc. I dont know why this happens but its funny. Same guys would love to sell their defense equipment to us. Fkers stole from countries worldwide, now have the audacity to tell us what we should be doing.

Reasoning can twist towards self interest.

Ex

1 Like
13

they would have still be sucking on our resources and taking away most of the money.

And they definitely would have not treated us as their natural citizens either.

Like I said at most we may gotten bit more autonomy but main control would have still been in their hands . Which yes means we would have still been slaves to them. Only with little better treated.

14

It is a shameful failure of your historical education (and how colonialism works in general) if you think we would be better off under the British.

Just an insane level of stupidity that you cant even debate against.

15

If British ruled us more they would have looted more of our mineral wealth and treated us as slaves or 3rd rate citizens.

Us getting Independence in the late 1940s is the right way.

If Hitler have won the 2nd WW then he would have brought Supreme Race concept and treated all others as inferior and eliminated them.

16

We Indians still live under the illusion that we have complete freedom .

We are dictated by the west on finance , media , leverage , jobs and what not .

The 56 inch walla is also a product imposed by us on the West . India’s no.1 company is also a western company . Most banks are owned by the west . India has been sold back to the West a long time back . That is the ultimate truth .

17

The Dutch and Portuguese and Spanish were worse . That is a big reason why they could not sustain their empires .

They have slave masters now . Big companies , politicians all bow down . Indians in turn bow down to those masters .

If you knew the answer for that t, then one can easily explain why the Rupee is at 90 .

18

nah, it is interesting to think what India would’ve been like in that alt universe though, completely depleted or Industrialised first world..or maybe something in between, like Brazil or Mexico or any eastern european nation.
many things would change, since pak/ban wouldn’t exist, which in itself might change a lot of things.

19

I was reading through the posts. I may have missed a few points, but two things really stand out.

One: we might have been better off if the British were still around.
Two: WW2 forced the British to leave India faster than they probably would have otherwise.

A few thoughts from my side (I may be wrong): The British first tried entering India through the south (Goa) but failed due to competition from other traders. So, they came in from the east of India (back the it was just a collection of individual states) and started trading. At first, it was just business. But, like many businesses, greed kicked in—they wanted to overthrow the ruler of Bengal to secure their trade (essentially for looting), with Mir Jafar’s help, who wanted power. Once that worked, the British seized the opportunity. Local rulers’ greed played right into their hands. Over time, the British grew so powerful that overthrowing them became nearly impossible because India wasn’t united yet.

The key point is that the British didn’t originally come to conquer and rule India in the traditional sense. Their methods were different from previous invaders like Ghazni, Ghori, and the Mughals, even though what the British did is arguably worse than those before them (debatable, depending on perspective).

By WW2, keeping India under control had become much harder. Ordinary people, not rulers, were increasingly united thanks to freedom movements. For the British, it was a business loss—and India wasn’t their only problem; they were struggling across Asia and Europe too. Looking back, it might have been better if we had taken freedom ourselves rather than Gandhi’s method. Doing it ourselves would have been like resolving a personal matter between siblings—much simpler than involving a third party whose intentions weren’t fully aligned with ours. That partly explains why things turned out the way they did.

People often blame our problems on an uneducated population. That’s partly true, but education alone isn’t enough. Most of us are educated now, yet the situation hasn’t fundamentally changed. IMO the real issue is how people are raised and how their thinking is shaped. Awareness is key—knowing what’s true and false, understanding how actions affect the greater good rather than just personal gain. Once that awareness spreads, no one—politicians, officials, or businesses—can easily manipulate the masses. But achieving that in a country of billions, where corruption is normalized from childhood, is extremely unlikely.

So, all we can really do is do our part and give it time, hoping things gradually improve.