The British Empire was actually one of the most benevolent ones. There's a reason why Gandhi's violentless approach worked and why China is an independent country.
Colonialism might just as well exist today like it did in the 1800s. UK amongst others specifically stopped it.
There are many reasons Gandhi's approach worked. One of them was the fear of 2 million newly armed and combat-experienced Indian soldiers returning home after WW2.
Nearly every successful peaceful revolution had a lurking threat of a less peaceful version nearby. Which isn't a bad thing and it doesn't discredit peaceful change, it just discredits the idea that people acquiesce to peaceful protests (exclusively) out of the goodness of their hearts.
In AL Basham's, 'the wonder that was India', he identifies several key differences in the idea of what a king is in India.
It's nothing like the European version.
There was no way India could have been properly ruled by the English crown. The understanding of monarchy is so different and also explains why so many kings happily agreed to become British vassals.
Gandhi’s non violent approach did not work. Until external factors like WW2 forced the British Empire to get rid of most of their colonies. The British empire was content with letting Gandhi protest in the streets and regularly throw him in jail as soon as his protests inconvenienced them.
Gandhi was controlled opposition IMO. His approach delayed the inevitable by decades.
A few tens of thousands of British troops - Over 200 years of the British Raj on average there were 60,000 to 70,000 British troops stationed in India - would have been absolutely slaughtered by the hundreds of millions of Indians (1857 population estimated at 250-300 million).
By the time Gandhi came into the picture, the British empire was overextended - any half decent uprising would have been successful..... unless you convinced the natives to give up on any physical form of dissent and sit down, protest and get beaten up as a virtuous slave.
(as an Indian, who has studied a lot about Indian history)
> A few tens of thousands of British troops
A lot of Indians happily joined British army because of the (relatively) better pay and better treatment.
> slaughtered by the hundreds of millions of Indians
But those were all divided into hundreds of kingdoms. In fact, a lot of Indian kings and princes preferred being a vassal of the English crown because the alternative was much worse (being imprisoned or killed by Indian rivals). Read about almost any major Indian wars/battles in the 18th century involving English and you will find a lot of neutral Indian parties, or the ones actively fighting on England's behalf.
> any half decent uprising would have been successful
Indian subcontinent suffered from a "coordination problem". Gandhi is admired because he played the biggest role in bringing a lot of them together. Of course, he couldn't bring everyone along (eg. Jinnah and Muslims), and there were a lot of other great leaders who also contributed (Patel, Tilak, Bose etc) towards uniting all the Indians, but none could attain Gandhi's stature.
Colonialism might just as well exist today like it did in the 1800s. UK amongst others specifically stopped it.