It goes without saying that India attained independence under leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. But it will be a fallacy to say that the British would leave India unless compelled. They had reluctantly to transfer power to Indian leaders. The international circumstances compelled the British to surrender to the independence movement. The Naval mutiny had its impact.  The Azad Hind Fauz led by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose had many British Indian soldiers in its ranks. So British could not trust the Indians employed in armed forces.  The impact of armed revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Chandra shekhar Azad can hardly be over stated.   

It is true that Netaji had a great impact. The militant freedom fighters of Hindustan Socialist Republican Association led by Chandra Shekhar Azad made supreme sacrifices. But they were not successful. They were also failure like first war of independence in 1857. The violent agitations were known to everyone and it was not difficult for British to crush them. But non violence and non cooperation was very unique and nobody had tested this weapon before. The non violent agitators acted within framework of law and so the entire people could participate openly in the struggle. Non cooperation virtually crippled the British administration.  The combined affect of non violence, satyagraha, non cooperation and adherence to lawful means was marvelous.  Even though we may praise all shades of freedom fighters, we can consider only the movement led by Mahatma gandhi as successful.   

There is view that the independence to India in 1947 was not real. This was just a transfer of power but the real sovereignty remained with British crown. The Independence of India Act passed by British parliament did not give rise to a sovereign nation. Instead two dominions under control of British crown were formed. India and Pakistan were just dominions- which is nothing but autonomous region under rule of British crown.  India and Pakistan remained members of British Commonwealth though the word 'British' has been removed. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth is still under British crown and continuance in that organization indicates that we are still under British rule though symbolically. British queen is ex officio head of Commonwealth.  Late Rajiv Dixit- an associate of Baba Ramdev- strongly believes that the independence granted in 1947 was unreal and sham.  You can never get freedom by making prayers before the rulers. Freedom can be attained only through armed struggle.   

The fact of independence in 1947 cannot be just brushed aside. It is undeniable fact that we attained independence through non violent non cooperative movement. The transfer of power was really a unique event. It was first time in human history that freedom was attained in a graceful manner and both- the British and the Indian leadership behaved in most graceful manner. No doubt, India and Pakistan were dominions of British empire as on 15th August 1947. But this was just a transitional arrangement to enable the regions to frame constitution of own. India eventually became a republic in 1950.  Membership of commonwealth is our free choice and we can leave the organization when we choose.  It is a glaring reality that India played a significant role in international politics under leadership of Pt Nehru and followed an independent foreign policy viz. non alignment and solidarity with Afro Asian countries. 

The administrative set up soon after independence was just a continuance of the British regime. There is a lot of change when people snatch power from a foreign ruler. But here was no snatching of power. There was some agreement that resulted in transfer of power in a constitutional way to the leaders favored by British rulers. Pt Nehru was educated  in England since very childhood and so he was every inch and Englishman.  Chakravarty Rajagopalachari who succeeded Lord Mountbatten also had pro British leanings.  Most of the law operating in India as well as Pakistan is continuance of British legacy. India continued to pay her contribution towards retirement benefits of British officers in post independence era.  India's continuance in Commonwealth is also an indicator of the fact that that the independence was not real. In fact, real freedom can never be attained through negotiation and peaceful demonstration or agitation. If non violence were so powerful a weapon, India would have no need for army and police as all issues could be solved through non violence. 

Non violence is a remarkable weapon. The power of non violence has been accepted and practiced by world leaders like Martin Luther Kind and Mandala. Non violence has a great moral appeal.  Army and police may have their own roles but the fact remains that non violence has not failed. Saint Vinoba Bhave succeed in fair land distribution through Bhoodaan whereas the violent land grab movement by Communists in Telangana was a failure.  The moral appeal by Jai Prakash Narayan- a socialist and sarvodaya leader inspired most cruel bandits to surrender. Thus non violence succeeded  whereas state machinery failed to curb the robbers' menace. Moreover army and police have limited role. Ultimately it is the moral force that works. Even when armies fight, ultimately issues are settled non violently on negotiation table. United Nations Organization is based on principle of peace and non violence. all nations are expected to settle their disputed peacefully through negotiation.  

The fact remains that India has framed her own constitution which has been amended many times. So our nation is sovereign and it is fallacy to dub her as continuance of the  British legacy.  India is living example of power of non violence. 

No doubt Gandhi ji was leader of the Indian freedom movement and Indian National Congress led by him gets maximum credit for India's independence. But can we ignore non congress participants.  Azad Hind Fauz of Netaji Bose and the armed revolutionaries viz Chandra Shekhar Azad,  Bhagat Singh are unforgettable.  But apart from these,  Muslim League led by Jinnah and Hindu Maha Sabha cannot be altogether ignored. In spite of separatist tendency, Muslim League participated in freedom struggle. Similarly Hindu Maha Sabha.  However, it is also undeniable that Muslim League and Hindu Maha sabha also need be discredited with two nation theory that led to partition of the country. 

Indian National Congress overshadowed all other forms of freedom movement.  It is undeniable that peoples' participation was only in freedom struggle led by Gandhiji. Any Indian could do his part just by using Charkha (spinning wheel), boycotting foreign goods and participating in freedom struggles. Contrast this with isolated personal attacks on British police officers.  People obviously could not participate in secret planned attacks and train robbery.  The armed struggle by Subhash Chandra Bose had also no peoples' participation. Bose relied largely on the British army soldiers in captivity of axis powers.  The soldiers of Azad Hind fgauz can by no stretch of imagination be considered as freedom fighters. They were very much British soldiers. If not mad prisoner of war by Nazi forces, they would continue fighting for the British army.  Thus we can say without fear of contradiction that the freedom struggle led by Indian National Congress was the only movement in which people at large participated.  The British understood this and so they transferred power only to Congress in India and Muslim League in Pakistan- who were genuine freedom fighters. 

The foreign and economic policies pursued by Indian leadership in post independence period clearly indicate that our independence was very real. India followed policy of non alignment and solidarity with other African and Asian countries.  On economic front, India implemented planned economy formulating five year plans.  India laid a solid industrial base by building steel factories, electricity generating units, dams and canals. The economic policies were based on socialistic pattern or democratic socialism- distinct from western free economy as well as Communist system. May be, India followed British pattern initially but India became a republic soon and framed own constitution.   

Locked but I will reopen soon besides I will consider your thread as full 10 posts including the opening post. Thanks