[James C. Bennett]

I actually don’t think Gandhi or Nehru had much to do with India’s independence.

Britain was in utter ruin after WW-2, and in no shape to handle its largest overseas territory. Nehru was a subscriber to the Fabian Society movement, from his years as a student in England.

Perhaps Sukhoi-30mki and Cronos can elaborate on all this.

[Steelfish]

Regardless of Britain’s status as an economic power, the authoritarian “cult of the individual” had and continues to have a strong pull in the psyche of colonial peoples. Nehru was schooled in British socialism

[Cronos]

well, yes and no. No, JCB, you're not completely right or wrong. Gandhi and Nehru had large parts to play in India's independence, but they were not the primary reasons for it. Neither was WWII. The British were masters at the colonial game -- they basically let Indians rule themselves but got paid to let them. The British fought the Sikhs, then got Sikh support agains the Marathas and Mughals, and they were never universally hated (unlike the French in their colonies).

The Brits made the mistake of not making India a dominion in the 1912s-1930s period. If they had, then India would be akin to Canada or Australia

Anyway, I digress. What REALLY convinced the British to leave, what was the final straw, the convincing argument, was the Indian Navy strike of 1946. The British ruled through the Indian Army, Navy, Police Force and Civil Service and in all of these the vast majority were Indians. The Brits KNEW that if the Navy said they would not support the Raj, then the Raj was finished. To the Brits credit, they knew when to leave and left quietly, and not lingering long after they were unwanted (like the French in Vietnam or Algeria or the Dutch in Indonesia).