This sentence in the script "This is the party of Gandhi and is still led by a member of the Gandhi family as one of the major Indian political parties today" is worded extremely poorly and for that we ask for your forgiveness. The easiest way to explain it is that Mahatma Gandhi considered the first Prime Minister of the independent India - Jawaharlal Nehru to be his successor. Nehru's daughter Indira would later become the third Prime Minister of India and she adopted the surname Gandhi via the marriage to another Indian politician Feroze Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma). Their son Rajiv would become the 4th Prime Minister of India. Rajiv's son Rahlul is the current leader of the Congress party. UPDATE: Just to avoid confusion, that part war removed from the video. Thank you for all your support. We are eager to cover every crucial story of the Cold War period, but we need your help to keep the production going. Please, consider supporting us via patreon: www.patreon.com/thecoldwar

You made a big mistake. The modern Gandhis who lead the Congress party are not related to Mahatma Gandhi at all. Rahul Gandhi (the current leader of the Congress Party) is the grandson of Feroze Ghandi, who adopted his last name out of respect for Mahatma Gandhi. He was not related to Mahatma Gandhi at all.

India and China is rarely discussed during cold war. Great choice of topic.

Good video. Just 2 clarifications - 1) India was never declared "for the Hindus". Yes, it is a Hindu majority nation but it was always to be a secular nation 2) India and Bangladesh sorted out their borders a few years ago. They agreed to an exchange of territory which has eliminated all the exclaves and enclaves

I have heard another flaw. In 1937 not only Burma (Myanmar), but also Aden (South Yemen) was separated from British India, but only Myanmar was mentioned.

Gandhi and Nehru are not related.

9:03 Actually, the India-Bangladesh enclaves question was resolved in 2015. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93Bangladesh_enclaves

My grandfather saw the blood bath of direct action day in 1946 and survived bengal famine in 1943 I still remember in my childhood when my grandpa used to tell me the stories of that time.. :")

First off, any video on partition is incomplete without mentioning the Indian National Army (Azad Hind). Also, the Enclaves issue has already been sorted out between India and Bangladesh.

Naturally, he conveniently omits that there had been massive internecine violence between Hindus and Muslims leading up to the Partition, which expedited it's implementation.

List of mistakes you made 1 Sri Lanka was never the part of British India .It was ruled separately by the British and was known as Ceylon 2 During British Raj Faisalabad was known as Lyallpur. It was renamed to Faislabad on 1977 was named after the late Saudi King Faisal 3 Old name of Dhaka was Dacca not Dakka

Thanks for giving me something to look forward too on a Saturday 👍🏻

Please, please do an episode about the Algerian Independence War. Thank you The Cold War if you do so.

Ghandi wasn't exactly a peace at all costs individual he is portrayed as. Sure, he wanted non-violent non-compliant protest, but he was okay with violence under some conditions. Read the speech known as the "Doctrine of the Sword."

Great video. Thank you for making it. Regardless of the criticism in the comments, we do appreciate the time and effort you put into the content and production. Educating people about history is important so keep them coming!

A very well made documentary of this particular episode. Well done.

Lol... NO! the Gandhi political family has nothing to do with the Mahathma.. 😄

Great info and presentation as always, I like the extra visuals. Your other series always evolves and upgrades, I'm sure this one will be the same :)

Can you do about the middle east British/Soviet/French withdrawal from Iran Iraq and Levant

Thank you. This was great, you explained it in a simple and short manner. I love your presentation. Subscriber now.

Another big mistake. Congress was body representing all indian sections not only Hindus , even leader of Muslim League,Jinnah was member of Congress

>Talks about WWII in India >Doesn’t talk about the Bengali Famine

China:

You da man professor, love the content! These length is about perfect for my secondary level World History class

There is a lot of information about U.S. involvement in famous events in Latin America like coups and civil wars during the Cold War, but much less so about how the U.S. interacted with countries where there was relatively less conflict. Can you make a video explaining how the U.S. supported right wing regimes in Latin America that were more stable, such as Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, etc. possibly talking about the pan-South American anti-communist alliance called Operation Condor that the U.S. was eventually involved in.

I am a subscriber of your channel from Pakistan, i wish my country wasn't part of this cold war theater but we aren't lucky as Australia or New Zealand to be an island nation

Thank you for covering this topic. Please do more on the Kashmir and Punjab regions

Gandhi is not the sole reason that India got independent. Majority of the credit should go to the men like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The man who led Azad Hind Sena. Better known in English as Indian National Army. Bhagat Singh, Chandra Shekhar Azad. Lokmanya Tilak, Swatantryaveer Savarkar and many men who committed Their lives to the freedom of India.

Are you related in any way to the Timeghost channels? Your content seems very similar exept you cover different parts of history,also the setting and the narration seems very similar,thats why im asking

In the near future, will you discuss Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines during the Cold War?

Not to pile on buuuut: Mahatma Gandhi is of no relation to the Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty of the Congress party

Will you touch on the Angola civil war?

Hope you do more vids about south asia during the Cold War lot of interesting things happened

What was the background music used in the 8 till 11 minute?

Always knew that this was a violent n messy period in history. But now some more blanks about it have been filled. My thanks to those who made this video a reality.

will you make special video correcting the mistake?

Pls cover Indo Pakistani wars, escpecially the 1971 war, which saw the involvement of the US and The Soviets

We need a Kings and generals video of Pak India wars of 1947 and 1965.

You ought to do a video on Iran, USSR case of 1946 which was the first case in the U.N security council!

Please do an episode on the Mitrokhin Archives, I think it would be amazing to see the sheer amount of behind the scenes action of the cold war. Whether it's the forerunner to Fake News and spreading of misinformation, or be it the absolute and collosal penetration by the Soviet intelligence services of the Indian state would be astonishing. Few countries sold themselves out so cheaply as India did back in the day.

Finally someone from west speaking about Indian history...most of it is accurate except that the Gandhi congress party presently has no connection with Mahatma Gandhi

TY 😊

Would love to see stuff related to the 1971 Liberation War in future.

very neutral analyses .well done

Ghandi is a literal meme

Jinnah made it clear he preferred a united India with a very weak Federal government to a "moth-eaten" Pakistan as he called it. Clearly, Congress, which represented vastly more people, would not agree and so partition was inevitable. Arguably, Pakistan is one of only two countries in the world which exists purely because of religion, the Vatican being the other.

I request you to make an episode on the roles the two sides of cold war played during the war of independence of Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971.

1:10 the map is showing Ceylon (today's Srilanka) as part of British India. British Ceylon was a separate colony and not part of British India.

Great Video , for those who disagree pls make a video of your own.

bangladesh -india enclaves issue have been dealt with in the year 2015 aka land boundary agreement

And to make the Kashmir "situation" even more spicy, there is a third player on that field with a nuclear arsenal -> China. I find it understanderble that this part is cut out, as the theme of the video is India and Pakistan... Thx for your work.

At 10:23 there is a shot from the side of your face that is completely out of place. You aren't looking at the camera, the light reflects off your glasses, and as far as I can tell it is the only shot of its kind in the video. It just seems odd. Like you had to use that angle to justify having the extra camera laying around. Other than that odd editing moment, I really thought this video was well done! Great job!

This topic is so chaotic that David needed two intros. 0:24 & 5:02.

This narrative reflects trends of historical discourse of the past thirty years. This is different than the 1980s, and the movie Gandhi which informed many people of this. At the time, many people whom saw this personally were 'in circulation'.

You're welcome

A series on the Pakistan India wars would be good

You should also consider the event of partition of Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh in 1971 during cold war in which both global power ( USA and USSR ) were involved ,to make a video.

But still. Srilanka wasnt a part of india. It was known as ceylon and had a separate government.

The background music is interesting

Are there any follow-up episodes about India and Pakistan's nuclear rivalry?

Indian liberation of Bangladesh in 1971 was a major event in cold war

please create Indonesian subtitle..

Inquilab Zindabad. Netaji Zindabad. Communism Zindabad. Kadam kadam badhaye ja, khushike git gaye ja , Ye zindagi hai Kaum ki to kaum pe lutaye ja. AIFB(All India Forward Block) Azad Hind Fauj amar rahe.

Do a episode on Bangladesh independence on cold war ...how USA supported pakistan and USSR supported India

Talk about German and Japanese POWs in Western nations.

Can you make video about lndian conqest of goa

A very good summary of a complicated subject in such a short time. One point I would make - suggesting that the Congress Party better appealed to Hindus is a little misleading. Certainly this is not true of today's Congress Party. In the Congress Party of that year, I think it was less of an issue of appealing to Hindus as it was merely that they just appealed to people who weren't Muslims. The Islam interests of that time period became focused on the issue of a separate Muslim state; the Congress Party's idea of a secular India did not appeal to them. Early Congress leaders were very much a part of the English-educated intelligentsia who could not relate to the Indian commoner. This was one of the reasons they hopped on to Gandhi's non-violent protest legacy, because it was he and not they who could relate to the average Indian of that time.

In addition, I believe the Congress party's decision to resign in response to the declaration of Indian entry into WWII was what drove Jinnah to resign from Congress and into the Muslim League.

Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka) was not part of British India. The narrative does not mention the drawing of the border line in Punjab and Bengal by Cyril Radcliffe.

Busting the myth that the British wanted a buffer state(Pakistan) between USSR and India: Part 1 The British Empire should not be viewed as the ultimate factor that determined everything in terms of history of the region. It makes more sense to simply view it as one of many different factors at play. Let’s talk about some of the many factors that were at play which resulted in the creation of Pakistan. One of the most important (or I suppose two) were the World Wars. The destruction caused by the First (1914 - 1918) and Second World Wars (1939 - 1945) throughout Europe changed the political situation in the world. This was especially true of the aftermath of the Second World War. The British Empire, like many other colonial European powers, found that it was no longer in a situation to hold onto many of its colonies. I should mention that there was also a growing change in attitude within Europe towards the colonies as well. Case in point, the Labour Party which won a landslide victory in the May 1945 UK General Election, declared in its manifesto to pursue self-determination for India. Add to this, the fact that the independence movement in the colonies were at an all-time high. Let’s not forget that two new superpowers (United States and Soviet Union) had arisen in the aftermath of the Second World War. Neither of which were in favor of the continuation of European colonization (Suez Crisis for example), as it was generally against their interests. This decision of the British government to withdraw from their colonies, including the Indian Subcontinent, was made easy as a result of these factors. The British wanted to leave the Indian Subcontinent as soon as possible. However, the number of the political entities (one or multiple) that would come to exist following their withdrawal was not the top priority. The main focus seems to have been to find a way to transition towards local governance as soon as possible, while trying to minimize the destruction or loss of life; things that were often seen in post-colonial states. It was up to the local political blocs within the Indian Subcontinent to decide, and come to an agreement, on the shape of the post-colonial Subcontinent. Evidence does suggest that the British government’s preference was to leave behind a unified India, which would ensure a rapid exit and minimize the chaos. These were the instructions given to Mountbatten, the new governor general of India, who arrived to deal with the situation in March 1947. However, upon arrival to India, Mountbatten soon realized that these were not realistic objectives at all. There were many different parties at play in the political landscape of the Indian Subcontinent. The two major ones being the Congress and Muslim League; both of which often had conflicting, if not directly opposing, ideals and objectives. Any attempt at leaving behind a unified Indian Subcontinent was contingent on these two sides coming to terms. An outcome that, in my opinion, had gone out the window with the rejection of the Cabinet Mission Plan by Congress in March 1946. This would have left behind a unified India that would be more of a confederation of states (including those that became a part of Pakistan) loosely bound together, with the central government holding a monopoly over the most crucial elements of the state (military, foreign policy, currency, etc). That isn’t to say that Nehru did not have genuine concerns with this negotiated solution, as it would have left a very weak central government in a newly-established state. The truth is that the Congress and Muslim League elites, both of which held considerable power, just wanted very different things. Mountbatten did initially attempt to follow through on the guidelines that he had been sent with by the British government. Jinnah, and the Muslim elites of the Muslim League, were unwilling by this point to settle for anything less than a separate nation for the Muslims. Mountbatten did try to convince Jinnah in favor of a united India for sometime. But Jinnah, nor the rest of the Muslim League elites, would not budge. We should not make the mistake of believing that Jinnah was solely dictating the objectives of the Muslim League. No more than Nehru or Gandhi were dictating the objectives of the Congress party. The leaders of political parties are subject to the influence of the party elites. The aspirations of the Muslim League would have remained the same regardless of Jinnah’s presence. He was simply the man who spearheaded the movement. The British Government had initially granted Mountbatten a one-year deadline for this transfer of power to the Indians. The original plan seems to have been to create a timeline where independence was gradually handed over to the Indians. However, Mountbatten found out that this was simply not possible. The situation was far too fragile. The strength of the British within India was waning with every passing day, as it had been for many years. The independence (anti-colonial) sentiment was growing stronger. There were even fears that the British Indian Army, an entity numbering over two million strong, could rebel against British authority. The rebellion of the Royal Indian Navy in 1946 was only a taste of what might come, if the British did not immediately transfer power. The British simply did not have the time or power required anymore (a year at the least) to settle matters in the Indian Subcontinent. British India was like a powder keg that could explode at any time. "Provided they (Indian Army) do their duty, armed insurrection in India would not be an insoluble problem. If however the Indian Army went the other way the picture would be very different." -General Hastings Lionel Ismay Violence and massacres would have likely become more common the longer the British remained in the Indian Subcontinent. Look at the French in Algeria during the last days of the colonial era. Now imagine a thousand times worse. The Indian Subcontinent didn’t just contain a few million people. It contained hundreds of millions. There would have been violence, death and destruction at an unprecedented level.

A little correction, Sri Lanka, a Crown Colony, was not a part of British India. It was called as British Ceylon. In the times of WW1 and WW2 which Ceylonese armed forces also participated its command wans't under the british indian armed forces. India inherited only what was a part of British India after its independence. Sri Lankans, over the period of 100 years, identified themselves as different from Indians and hence their independence movement was separate from India's. Sri lakan independence movements even collaborated with indan independence movements to gain independence. It can be made clear because both countries never declared war on each other, like india and pakistan.

Chinese subtitle added. Please review, thanks!

75 years since the British left I hope no one should no more have doubts on the necessity of partition of India on religious lines. Listing the plight of some of the communities who had decided to remain within their respective countries as Minorities: 1. Kashmir inside India [No brainer, has to come at the top] 2. Muslims/Sikhs/Christians in India, Hindus/Christians/Buddhists in Pakistan & Bangladesh. 3. Balochs inside Pakistan Chakmas inside Bangladesh and liguistically minor players within India. Through my experience I have come to believe that the strength of character of a person or group of people is most visible when they are in powerful positions. It needs no brain, just honesty and humility to understand that all of us in the sub-continent and in retrospect quite a few from later part of British raj have failed by that parameter.

One thing I don't understand is why the Sikhs didn't get Punjab and make Khalistan ? Because the Nankana Sahib and Kartarpur Sahib are in Pakistan while Harmandir Sahib is in India. How come Muslims got two countries but the Sikhs didn't?

I hope you do a Cold War video on South Africa during this period. It's little known that they were a nuclear power as a deterrent against the USSR and Cuban presence in Angola. The Angolan/South African Bush War lasted 23 years and was the only proxy war of the cold war on earth. Its also fascinating how communist ideals fed the struggle against apartheid, through the SACP, PAC and ANC, against a then almost neo-Nazi nationalist apartheid government. After this period, Namibia seceded from South Africa as a former protectorate and in the light of a democratically elected black majority government in South Africa, one of the final acts of the apartheid regime was to willingly dismantled their arsenal. The only country to not only develop nuclear weapons in secret but also to get rid of them; perhaps as a means to ensure no black African government would have control of these weapons.

please make a video about soviet influence on India.

I would ask for Elias Frahat I’ve asked for the Iran Crisis of 1946 and the Tabriz Government (which probably would have eventually become a puppet was NOT a puppet of Stalin at the time and was an allied local group that the Soviets put into power to legitimize their occupation, but again the Tabriz government was not a Soviet puppet it had real local support and was a true independence movement. Kind of like how Mongolia was independent at first and just supported by the red army, but then later became a puppet of Stalin. However after only a year the red army withdrew in return for oil concessions (which Stalin never received). Tabriz was brutally reincorporated into Iran including civilian massacres, and azeri was banned and it’s remaining speakers brutally suppressed. But now I’m not sure if you will be factually accurate.

Kindly correct the map shown. It is not a right course of action for a channel of repute.

The annexation of Hyderabad in 1948 was a bloody affair, too. But hardly anyone knows about it.

What is a moose-lum?

👍👍❤️

Can you cover the development of India's nuke programme some day?

Busting the myth that the British wanted a buffer state(Pakistan) between USSR and India: Part 2 This was the crux of the problem. You had two different political parties, both of whom held significant influence throughout British India, who wanted a completely different outcome. Neither of which was willing to concede to the other in favor of unity. The British, who were serving as the mediators, no longer had the power to dictate terms to either side. A better alternative solution may have been possible, which may result in a unified Indian state, but would have required a longer time frame (a few years at least) under British mediation. Time that was no longer available, as every day of British presence pushed the Indian Subcontinent towards complete chaos; and placed further burden (financial, political, etc) on the United Kingdom, which had not yet recovered from the Second World War. This is why I have a problem with people trying to provide simplistic hypothetical solutions in retrospect to one of the most complex problems of the time. The refusal of the Muslim elites of the Muslim League to budge from the idea of a separate nation for the Muslims, despite multiple attempts at convincing by Mountbatten and Congress members, eventually forced the British government and Congress to agree to the partition of British India. Mountbatten (British representative), Nehru (leader of Congress) and Jinnah (leader of Muslim League) all finally agreed to the partition of the Indian Subcontinent. Gandhi, on the other hand, insisted on the idea of a united India. An outcome that was no longer possible. The partition was seen as a better alternative to the chaos (and civil wars) that would result, if an agreement was not reached. "the truth is that we were tired men and we were getting on in years... The plan for partition offered a way out and we took it." -Nehru on agreeing to the partition We are giving the British government too much credit, to the point of attributing powers of clairvoyance, in making the assumption of an omniscient British Empire that created Pakistan to serve as a buffer state between the Soviet Union and India. What I mean by that is that the British government had no way of predicting or knowing the series of events that would take place in the coming decades in which Pakistan would finally play a role against the Soviet Union. We are after all talking about the same British government (as is the case with most governments) that failed to even predict events that would take place in a matter of years in multiple occasions; let alone decades. No one is capable of future predicting events with such accuracy. For example, how could the British possibly have known the eventual direction of the politics in either India or Pakistan? It was very much possible that a socialist government would take control of Pakistan as well. Remember that socialists held considerable influence during the early years of Pakistan. What about the Indo-Pak War of 1948, which would set the stage for the rivalry between the two states? How could the British predict the series of events that would take place in Afghanistan and Iran over a period of decades (1940s-1970s), which would elevate Pakistan at the forefront against the communist bloc? Why not just use Afghanistan as this buffer (as it had previously served as this buffer) between the Soviet Union and India, in exchange for the regions of the Frontier Province and Balochistan. If the British just wanted a buffer between India and the Soviet Union, why go through the trouble of creating East Pakistan? Add to these, a hundred more questions and events that the British Empire had no way of guessing before hand. Conclusion People have a tendency to search for conspiracy theories to provide simple answers to extremely complex situations. The use of a villain (British Empire in this case), an evil mastermind that controls all events from the shadows, as a scapegoat to blame all problems or negatives upon provides this easy explanations. A false, but nonetheless simplistic answer. What we had was one of the most complex situations in the world at the time. The eventual outcome, that being the Partition of the Indian Subcontinent into the Dominion of India and Dominion of Pakistan, is known to us. Instead of looking at the multiple factors at play, some of which were circumstantial or random; or looking at the many different parties or interests present; we look at the eventual outcome and try to connect all factors to this. The problem with this being that our perception of history ends up being distorted. The end result is that we often tend to view the British Empire, an entity capable of being able to accurately predict every outcome, as an evil mastermind playing 5-D chess from behind the scenes. This is an unrealistic way to look at historical events. There are far too many independent and random factors (not associated with the British) at play for anyone to drive towards an outcome from the beginning. One can agree or disagree with the Partition of the Indian Subcontinent. Some might see it as the better alternative and others may see it as the worst alternative. We have no way of knowing whether a unified Indian Subcontinent, had it come to exist, would be a better outcome than the situation that exists today. Remember that the division into seperate states also alleviated many of the problems (ethnic blocs, religious tensions, lack of common law, opposing ideals, weaker central government, etc) that would have existed in a unified state. India might today be suffering from far greater problems if Pakistan and Bangladesh were still a part of it. However, it makes little sense to turn to conspiracy theories to explain and take the blame for all sets of events that one disagrees with. The British Empire did not create Pakistan to serve as a buffer between the Soviet Union and India. Pakistan came to exist as a consequence of multiple factors and events that took place over a period of decades in the later 19th and first half of the 20th century. The impact of the two World Wars on Europe, rise of Pan-Islamism in politics in the world, Aligarh and Urdu Movement, formation of the All-India Muslim League, rise of religious involvement into politics, break-down of Hindu-Muslim unity, popularisation of Two-Nation Theory among Muslim elites, perception of alienation by Congress by Muslim elite, inability of the Congress and Muslim League to come to terms, etc. That is not to say that the British did not have its role to play in this eventual outcome. The British Empire had since the early days of colonization used religious and ethnic divides as a tool of control. Playing the different sides against one another (“martial” vs “non-martial” races, Muslim vs Hindu, etc); religious differences being one of these tools of division (Hindi-Urdu divide for example). The end result over a century of colonial rule was the divergence of the two religious groups (at least in terms of elites), who often did not see eye-to-eye with one another. However, the British Empire did not create Pakistan. That is an attempt to seek a simplistic explanation of a complex situation.

You're wrong about the Congress representing the views of the Hindus. It was a secular party with members from all religions. Mahatma Gandhi had a huge following amongst poorer Muslims and many many millions chose to remain in secular India after the partition instead of migrating to the Muslim dominated Pakistan. The Muslim League got its vote from the upper middle and upper class Muslims who were disproportionately represented in the electorate due to the limited franchise system in place at that time. The Congress was not a Hindu party and remains secular to this day (might have actually tipped over a bit during its last stint in office and actually become somewhat pro Muslim in terms of abolishing regressive practices and enacting uniform civil laws). The Muslim League was a purely communal organisation meant to polarise India's masses and split the independence movement.

I will highlight, the footages of Indian soldiers in world war II not of the British Indian Army, but are in fact of the anti-British Indian Legion and of Indian National Army, both founded by Indian Nationalist politician Subhas Chandra Bose.

8.27: Correction for that interpretation of regarding on Sikhs, Buddhists and even the Jains. Under India's Constitution Article 25.2 (b): (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. Though most people could consider the 3 faiths holds separate identity, they are still considered as 'branches' that branch out from the Hindu Religion. Although I do agree that Sikhs should have a country of their own (Goggle the Sikh Kingdom.) The size of the country would be joining Punjab and Lahore into one.

You forgot to mention first war of independent in 1857 between British east Indian company and the mughals.

Will you make a video discussing about Brazil? Before and during the military dictatorship?

Wonder what would happen if mughal empire never broke up

What does the map leave out Jammu and Kashmir in the map at 1:07

0:47-1:01 I would officially put the British total subjection of India began in 1661 and ended in 1947.

Only a westerner could give a narrative of India in WW2 and completely ignore the INA and Azad Hind Movements :D . not to mention the Bengal famine !

You should have mention that bangladesh almost turned into an another vietnam.

8:49 There are some mistakes in this map. The Kingdom of Sikkim was not formally annexed before 1975. Before 1950 it was not even an Indian protectorate. Another issue is that the Southern Tibet/Arunachal area disputed between China and India, is however not marked as disputed. As the dispute continues even to this day and there was actually a war between China and India for this area in 1960s, it should be marked in such a Cold-War themed commentary video.

Enclave issue have already been short out few years ago between India and Bangladesh 😑

do a video on Kuomintang invasion of Burma and Chinese civil war

But still how did they get nukes?

Was Yemen not also part of the British Raj

If one is not a Hindu, Mohandas K. Gandhi should be referred to by his name, rather than the religious title "Mahatma" (Great Soul). King may have "copied" Gandhi, but Gandhi certainly knew of the ideas of American Henry David Thoreau.

3:04 There were no British citizens at the time, only British subjects