I hear this argument a lot from Indians, that Gandhi was loyal to the British and he helped install a pro British government. I don't know what the proposed better alternative is. The British was ruling the country for the better part of 4 centuries by then, and changing it to something else would take years of effort. Combine this with different princely states not wanting to be part of independent India, the economic realities, and the looming threat from China - you have a recipe for a failed state. I would have preferred India not colonized at all, but there was no better alternative than this for India to become independent from the British.

Armed uprisings were few and far in-between in India. Subash Chandra Bose was the only one that came any close to having a successful army but even if he was more successful than he really was, it wouldn't last long with him aligning with the Axis in WW2.

> Gandhi whether you like it or not was a British citizen. Except the British never saw it this way. One can argue that if Britain identified all colonial citizens as their own, the Gandhian movement in India would not have gained a lot of traction at all. One of their first demands was equal treatment.