I recently left a comment on neoreactionary Jim’s blog, wherein I briefly explained how the British Imperialists and modern Indian Leftists have rewritten history to completely bury the role of Hindu Nationalism in our independence movement. I reproduce the comment here, slightly edited:
The truth is that, early Indian Independence was strongly Hindu Nationalistic and a powerful sentiment sweeping across the nation, particularly after the British Crown takeover in 1857-58. The suppression of Indian and particularly Hindu culture under the new era British Imperialism (early progressivism as noted by Jim) naturally led to a strong rise of Hindu Nationalism which the British feared more than anything else as a threat to their continued presence in India. By the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the British ruthlessly suppressed Hindu Nationalist freedom fighters, whom they often dubbed as terrorists, by hanging them or incarcerating them under horrific conditions in places like the Cellular jail in the Andamans. Of course the Indian National Congress which loves to take credit for the freedom movement in India was nothing more than a cuckish discussion group at that time. Note how the British dealt with real Hindu nationalists (by hanging or incarceration and torture at Cellular jail under horrific conditions) while the cucks were mostly molly-coddled when put in jail at all (Gandhi, Nehru etc. had the privilege of writing letters/epistles in jail and never put to hard labour).
The British of course, could not fully suppress Hindu Nationalism by terror alone and they took every opportunity to stoke up divisions in India’s independence movement by subtly encouraging Muslim Nationalism while at the same time coddling the Gandhians, who played into British hands by outright rejecting Hindu nationalism and embracing International Humanism as their religion and ideology for India’s independence. The product of all this was, of courses, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the father of Pakistan. Jinnah was probably right in seeking a separate nation for India’s Muslims, but tragically the Hindu cucks in the Congress wanted India to remain secular and multi-cultural even as they tried hard to avoid Partition. By the end of World War II, the British were edgy in India, because the religious tensions they had stoked in the 20s and 30s began to take fruit. The Partition of India was inevitable. But the British did not want the blood on their hands and tried desperately under Mountbatten to negotiate truce between Jinnah and Nehru, which, by this time, an ideologically hardened Jinnah rejected outright.
India gained independence at the bloody cost of Partition which would have been great had it been a real Partition with a peaceful and organized transfer of Hindu/Muslim population, but it ended up being a genocide and forced migration of Hindus from newly formed Pakistan to India, while some Indian Muslims also voluntarily migrated to Pakistan fearing a backlash. The revival of modern Hindu Nationalism was because of the severe disillusionment in Gandhi’s International Humanistic ideology which failed to stop the Partition, the bloodshed of Partition and a peaceful Hindu/Muslim population transfer between India and Pakistan.
Thus India gained independence but the imperfect and bloody Partition was a severe disadvantage from the start.
Jawaharlal Nehru, who took over as India’s first PM and ruled for a few decades, though an anglophile himself, installed Soviet Socialism as India’s official religion since the West (represented by British imperialism) was still an enemy in the eyes of most Indians.
Until recently, India has been ruled mostly by Leftists, but mostly the Leftists of the Soviet school customized for Indian conditions.
Ironically the old school Leftists of the Nehruvian school adopted Soviet-style socialism rather than Western multi-culturalism, which probably kept India somewhat immune from the cultural progressivism of the Western world at least until the economic liberalization of India in the 1990s.