Yeah they left because the British empire was collapsing during and after WWII and they knew they would be unable to sustain their presence in India, especially with the rising violence and massive population.

Gandhi had been campaigning for 20 years, but it didn’t have any effect until the British quite literally ran out of steam with zero other options.

If Churchill had won a reelection, it’s likely he would have gripped the remaining colonies for longer which probably would have ended more bloody.

Jinnah saw all the sectarian violence go unresolved under British rule and pushed for an independent Pakistan knowing it wouldn’t just magically disappear after the British left.

Gandhi ironically was assassinated by Hindu extremists for “allowing” Jinnah to succeed in making Pakistan, and now those same extremists make up the current party in power in India.

---

The joke is that no nonviolent movement ever really succeeded because of the non violence. India and Pakistan gained independence because the British couldn’t control the onslaught of uprisings in their colonies. The civil rights movement succeeded because the government was afraid of violent public outbursts if they didn’t start making serious law changes. Even more irony, MLK was also assassinated.

Both of those events were taken out of historical context and then presented as if nonviolent action was the major cause of change when in reality it was just one part of a much bigger picture.