In the case of the Indian Freedom struggle it would make sense to rephrase the popular saying as follows - "One man's freedom fighter is another man's nuisance". Churchill and many high ranking British officials viewed Gandhi as a nuisance. Why? Many Britishers were firmly convinced that "India" never existed to begin with. Focus on this. Why were the Britisher's so adamant that "India" never existed and would never exist? And this attitude existed well before 1947. Did the Britisher's see something that we Indians are blind to even today? I strongly believe so. The Britisher's knew that while Gandhi fought for country India, his followers instead were fighting for Independence from British. Fighting for Independence from the Britisher's does not necessarily mean that one would want achieve Independence for India. Majority of the present-day Indian population are under the false belief that the idea of a United India existed well before 1947. This misguided belief is far far from the truth and is the single biggest reasons why there are Idiots who label Gandhi & Nehru as traitors. It was because of their blind followers that Gandhi & Nehru were forced to make hard decisions, the same decisions for which they are being labelled as traitors today.
From your post, it seems to me that you are someone who firmly believes that a united India existed in the hearts and minds of the people native to the Indian subcontinent (notice how i use "Indian Subcontinent" instead of "India" or "country") well before the day we achieved independence. A united India never existed then and it still doesn't exist even today.
While external factors did play a large role in forcing the Britisher's to leave, Gandhi's principles also played an equally large role if not the largest of all the factors. I however disagree that the his followers consciously believed in fighting for a united India. Rather, his followers only wanted the Britishers to leave.
Lord Nemesis believes that there only existed two separate, collective perspectives in 1947. I on the other hand see three very different collective perspectives.
1) Britisher's believed that the whole Indian Freedom Movement was fighting for a country that never existed and thus considered the movement a nuisance.
2) Gandhi believed in a united India and thus started the Non-cooperation movement.
3) Gandhi's followers only fought for independence from the Britisher's and never saw eye-to-eye with Gandhi's idea of a united India.
That's exactly what the video is all about. Tharoor's speech brings to light certain aspects of the British Raj, the accuracy of which can be contested as well. Tharoor's speech highlights the following -
1) The Britisher's had gained far far more from the Indian subcontinent than what some well-educated British scholars would like to believe.
2) The British Raj was oppressive and demoralizing and not just violent.
Tharoor's speech however does not:
1) Claim that the Oppressive and Violent British Raj is responsible for majority if not all of present-day problems in India.
2) Indirectly suggest that we kicked the Britisher's out of our country.
3) Suggest that Nehru and Gandhi are traitors.
4) Suggest that a united India existed well before 1947.
Very True.
But then you do a full 180 and claim Pakistan to be a PITA. Really?
I do subscribe to your idea about the biggest flaw in Indian thinking, well perceived & exploited by the British.
But,
Though united India did not exist before 1947, but the Idea of united India under one Ruler (idea of Democracy wasn't available then) always existed. From Kanishk to Aurangzeb , Ashoka , Akbar every Great Ruler who ruled India aspired of gaining the full control over the subcontinent. No ruler was strong enough, Consistent enough , Organized enough & Most Importantly BRUTAL enough to achieve that feat.
Aurangazeb achieved 75% of control , which was highest for any emperor who ruled India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar#/media/File:Mughal_Historical_Map.png
But what I differ here is that I don't blame my ancestors for not being united. The geographic, Linguistic, Religious & cultural barriers across India were so powerful that it wasn't easy to unify them. it was simply not possible in that era. Even in present era of communications it is partially achieved. This era we are not limited by resources to reach each other, but sadly by the mindset !
Though, It is easier said than done , and that let the British exploit the situation. British rulers on the other hand were strong, Consistent, organized and Brutal enough to rule this country as a whole.
Coming back to Tharoor speech , You Missed two Important points he raised throughout his debate
1. He does mention clearly that we Snatched our democracy and Freedom from the British ! Please listen again & I firmly believe that Indian freedom struggle , Initially perceived as PITA and overlooked by the British as useless exercise ; led to their departure from the most rewarding British Colony they controlled !
2. Most Important point (than the one previous) : The successful democracies owe majority of their success to the SLAVE ECONOMY ! Please concentrate on the part where he is interrupted by a female questioner and he re- Asserts the fact. Obviously India isn't as successful as others because we literally started with a Zero . Our democracy wasn't sponsored by a Slave economy or colonial earnings so we should find some respite from self pity.
Coming to the 180 turn:
I tried to subtly mention what you phrased very well ("One man's freedom fighter is another man's nuisance"). Today we are viewing 'Azaad Kashmir' voices as PITA or Pak Sponsored terrorism and moving on. But tomorrow if Kashmir were to be independent the same would be viewed as 68yrs of freedom struggle by Kashmiris !
The Partition of India ( Biggest Mass Migration in World History) - as East & West Pakistan initially - The division was So illogical by shear geographical locations ( Also South Pakistan if Hyderabad Nizam was able to execute it ) ; as something which was un-necessary. It is the fear of mass killings of Minorities by Hindu dominated Independent India as Fueled by then British Govt. (as Part of their Divide & rule) was a important factor in the Partition. Neither MK Gandhi or Maulana Credentials could stop that. It was something which should not have occurred in the first place. The Partition was a biggest scar in Indian history & British contribution for it is a well known affair.
Partition followed by minimally Democratic Pak Rulers are a PITA left to us by a British rule.
As I mentioned Previously , We should be grateful to British for two things:
Partially Unifying India and the Knowledge of English Language. Which opened mind of free thinkers . We need not be thankful to British for the Infrastructure created in India because most of it was directed towards supporting the transport of their loot, Also the education system which was meant to make Educated Clerks to serve the British interests.
I understand the Wrath of current generation and partly subscribe to it.
WE DID NOT LEARN LESSONS FROM OUR OWN HISTORY
Whatever Independence we got from the British we lost it to Corrupt Politicians , Bureaucrats & Business Class with unscrupulous practices.
Thus in Independent India , Cong (Corrupt Politicians ) Became the new British , Wicked Indian Entrepreneurs replaced the East India Company & Corrupt Bureaucrats replaced Robert Clive !
Now (probably) unfortunately the BJP will become the New Cong & this cycle will go on. ..