Thread by @shrikanth_krish

Very valid point

Now the riposte can be - "Hey...we'd have had mass mobilization anyway with or without Gandhi"

Maybe. But it might have been a more violent form of mass mobilization (quite likely Communism or a milder variant of it)

https://twitter.com/teasri/status/1179748924443299842

Now many may think this is a data-free assertion

But no

1952 elections, the first universal elections held in India, gives us a clue

The "Gandhian" Congress party got 45% of the vote

Left parties of different hues got 23%!

Hindu Right < 5%

In the absence of Congress and Gandhian mass mobilization, that big bulk of the vote would have leaned Left.

Not to the Right

I still regard the peculiar nature of Gandhian mass mobilization as one key reason why India did not lean to the too far to the Left in early-mid 1900s

Some argue that we had nascent forms of mass mobilization before Gandhi - pioneered by "conservative" leaders like Tilak

Sure

But Tilak's brand of conservative politics might not have had a lot of success in 1930s India outside of Western and to a lesser extent North India

The South and the East would have leaned to the Left much more strongly in the absence of Gandhian Congress

An interesting case study is Madras Presidency

Where the pre-eminent leader from 1930s to mid 50s was a rather aloof brahmin - Rajaji

Now there is no way he would have gotten anywhere close to the CM's post without the "charm" of Gandhi behind him

And TN remained a Congress bastion till 1967!

There is no way that would've happened without the "nationalist" movement

It would've turned Dravidian much sooner

And it is worthwhile to note that CPI won some 8 seats if memory serves me right in the Madras Presidency in the 1952 elections

The Left was popular

Gandhian nationalism stunted its development