Exactly. Or ask the Tibetans how it worked out for them as well. I have studied a little bit of that era in Indian history and I don't think it was as simple as the popular mythology puts it. I suspect that Britain would have eventually let India go, Gandhi or no Gandhi, as they had too many problems at home to deal with.

The American Revolution is another event that is often cited as the little guy overcoming the big guy. Ok, here are the facts. I am a descendant of Loyalists (British supporters) who were forced to flee the country afterwards. The Loyalists were FAR from being in the minority. Remember the "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" of a couple of years ago? Well, if you were a Loyalist you could expect one of those mostly peaceful protestors to show up at your door with burning torches and hot tar and feathers. Yeah. They don't talk about that much in the history books, do they? And they downplay the fact that if the French hadn't come to the Americans' aid when they did, things might have turned out very differently. Not to mention that not everyone in Britain supported the war. You could say that the American colonies were a liability as far as the Crown was concerned; Britain had spent a lot of money defending them in the French and Indian War and felt that the colonists were not doing their fair share of shouldering the expenses. (Where have we heard that before?). Which is why all the taxes in the first place. Canada--which presumably "suffered" the same injustices laid out in the Declaration of Independence--never went to war against the mother country and eventually became independent through peaceful means.