Without the complex interplay of liberal and imperial powers, the expansion of the British Empire would not have occurred. It is an irony of history that in the further course precisely this interplay undermined the foundations of the rule over foreign peoples.
Whilst the British have caused much suffering under the guise of liberal ideas - see for example my post on tea and salt - there have been those who were serious about helping the subjugated. Let us take a look again at India. In the decades following the 1857 rebellion, liberals started several reforms. Indians were allowed to work in the Indian Civil Service, political posts became available to them, and liberal British helped to found the Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885, which later became the Congress Party. The latter was important in to help forming an Indian public opinion. Hopes of co-determination thus grew among the natives.
But under the influence of the imperialists, that hope shattered. For some time, participation in the Civil Service was associated with almost insurmountable hurdles. Just to name a few: examinations had to be passed in Great Britain and the smallest mistakes led to dismissal. In politics, the posts were only linked to an advisory function. British decision-makers could ignore them all they wanted.
The developments around World War I provide another good example. During the war, the British officially fought for the freedom and self-determination of peoples. For this, Indian soldiers were fighting side by side with their British counterparts on European battlefields.
After the war, political reforms took place in the colony. Parliaments were installed in provinces and at the national level. But not all MPs were elected; many were appointed. And the seats were divided among ethnic and religious groups: The British installed loyal MPs and created discord among the elected MPs, because the division of seats did not correspond to the proportions in the population. Of which only a small percentage was allowed to vote anyway.
In the executive, not all topics were entrusted to Indians. In addition to foreign policy, the judiciary, the police, the military and irrigation, which is important in arid India, were still under the control of the viceroy and his administration.
In addition, the viceroy had the right to convene parliaments and dissolve or extend their legislative term at will. The British controlled the budget, and the British Parliament in Westminster remained the highest legislative power in the Crown Colony.
In the end, the hope for self-determination was not really fulfilled, especially since the British curtailed some freedoms with the Rowlatt Act. During the war, fundamental rights of citizens had been restricted to facilitate the prosecution of conspirators. Any suspected person could be arrested without a court order, detained indefinitely, their property confiscated. The new law extended the measures indefinitely.
Tensions were high between the British and the Indians. Something was about to happen. On 13 April 1919, the time had come. In Amritsar, up to 20,000 people gathered in a local park. To a large extent, they were protesters who had responded to a call by the INC to protest against the arrest of two leading heads of their organisation. In addition, participants of a religious festival moved through the area, as well as regular visitors.
The rioters had to be stopped. General Dyer, commander of the local troops, had the entrances to the park blocked and fired into the crowd without warning. According to official figures, at least 379 people were killed and over 1,000 injured.
The riots were investigated by a parliamentary commission in London, which condemned the incidents. However, it was not possible to agree on a punishment for General Dyer. Some Britons considered Dyer a hero who had put down the start of a possible revolution and secured Britain's rule in India. He was "allowed" to leave military service.
For many Indians, the massacre was a turning point. While many activists had previously sought more self-determination in cooperation with the colonial rulers, now those who advocated independence for the country prevailed. The INC was now headed by Mohandas Gandhi, who had already successfully fought for the rights of the Indian minority in South Africa.
Shocked by the events of 1919, he declared cooperation with the British a sin. All Indians were called upon to resign from the civil service, leave British-funded schools and universities, and close factories. Foreign goods, especially British textiles, were to be boycotted. (The British textile industry had destroyed the domestic counterpart).
Gandhi relied on a strategy of non-violent resistance. By taking peaceful action and enduring the punishment that would follow, he wanted to morally expose the British. At the same time, many citizens would be outraged by the punishment that followed and join his resistance. More and more, power would slip away from the colonial rulers. Whether due to peaceful resistance or exposure, the opposing side would have to give in.
But measured against the ambitious goal of all-encompassing self-determination, Gandhi failed. After repeated violent attacks, he abandoned his campaign. At least the Rowlatt Act was repealed.
In 1930, Gandhi launched a second campaign. This time, the British salt monopoly was at the centre of his strategy, a well-considered move. The state monopoly was morally reprehensible, all Indians were affected by it, everyone could take part in the protest with simple means and the subsequent drop in tax revenue would hit the British hard.
The beginning was marked by Gandhi's 24-day march to the coast at Dandi. Initially accompanied by 79 supporters, the length of the column was soon several kilometres. Along the way, tens of thousands of people cheered him on. During the march, Gandhi gave speeches and interviews. The international press covered the march. The New York Times published several articles and Time later named Gandhi Man of the Year.
On 5 April, the convoy reached the coast. A day later, Gandhi held up a lump of salt sludge and said "With this, I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire". Then he extracted the salt by boiling it in seawater. Millions did the same.
Less than a month later, Gandhi was arrested. However, the resistance did not end. Alongside other acts of civil disobedience, such as boycotting British goods, there were outbreaks of violence again. Unlike in the 1920s, Gandhi did not call for an end to the protests.
The resistance continued until 1934 and can be considered a success, even if it did not bring about any great change initially. Even the salt tax remained in place. However, both the British and the Indians' perception of the situation in the country changed. Unlike at the time of the 1857 uprising, the Indians had their own organisations with capable minds at the helm. With their resistance, they could put pressure on the colonial masters, both economically and morally. Against their will, the subcontinent would hardly be able to be ruled.
But the British were still reluctant to relinquish control. Another constitutional reform with more powers for local institutions followed in 1935, but it took another war to shake up the order.
In World War II, Great Britain once again fought alongside its allies for democracy and freedom. The Atlantic Charter enshrined the right of all peoples to self-determination. And awareness of India's situation had risen all over the world.
At the same time, Great Britain lost its status as a capable protective power in its sphere of influence – one of the key arguments the nation gave to legitimize its subjugation and rule over its colonies. Hong Kong, Burma and Singapore were conquered by the Japanese Empire. Bombing raids on Indian cities such as Kolkata (Calcutta) followed, as did isolated advances on land.
The loss of Singapore, the central naval base in the region, became a symbol of lost invincibility. Australia would have been virtually defenseless in the event of a possible invasion attempt by Japan. The British Dominion had to ask the USA for support.
India participated in the conflict with the largest volunteer army in history. In August 1945, the strength was 2.5 million men. Indian units fought in Africa and Europe against Nazi Germany, but especially in Southeast Asia against Japan. The recapture of Burma, Malaysia and Singapore would have been hardly possible without Indian troops.
And then the time came. In early 1946, the British government published its intention to grant India independence the following year. There were all kinds of reasons for the short notice. The newly elected government was Labour. The Socialists were far less attached to the Empire than other parties[1] . And Britain was worn out from the war. There was enough to do at home. The government had neither the means nor the time to fight in the colonies.
Especially since power on the subcontinent was now only formally in British hands. In politics as well as in the Indian Civil Service, most posts were now occupied by Indians. Lord Wavell, British viceroy at the end of 1946, stated: "While the British are still legally and morally responsible for what happens in India, we have lost nearly all power to control events; we are simply running on the momentum of our previous prestige.” [2]
If the INC proclaimed India's independence, the British would have no choice but to back down. It was better for Britain's prestige to voluntarily surrender the colony. Both morally and in order not to further tarnish its status as a great power. And didn't the self-determined transition fulfil an old mission statement? The United Kingdom had not come to the country as an occupier, but to develop the colony and ‘make it civilzed.’
But in seeking to avoid the impression of a loss of control, the British had to push through the process. India was, and is, home to many different cultures and religions, which often pursued different interests and sometimes were even fighting each other. The INC saw itself as representing all Indians but lost this status with the founding of the All India Muslim League in 1906.
The British had often played the different factions off against each other to secure their power. Accordingly, the two large camps were divided when it came to the future of the subcontinent.
The INC aimed for a centralised state structure. The Muslims wanted their own state. The British hoped to accommodate the different ethnicities and religions with a federal structure. With the one-state solution, they also aimed for a strong Indian army as an ally in future conflicts.
In 1946, Muslims initiated strikes and protests. Riots followed. Muslims hunted Hindus, in other places Hindus hunted Muslims. Several thousand people were murdered. In order not to escalate the situation further, Britain and the INC agreed to a two-state solution. The British instructed a lawyer (!) to present a border within 40 days.
In August 1947, India and Pakistan, alongside present-day Bangladesh, were declared independent nations. The agreed borders soon turned out to be less than ideal. More unrest followed. Millions of people, Hindus and Muslims alike, were driven from their homes or lost their lives. The most prominent victim was Gandhi. He advocated reconciliation between the fighting factions and was shot by a fanatical Hindu in early 1948.
The hasty independence process also had long-term consequences. There were tensions between the two parts of Pakistan. In 1971, East Pakistan won its independence in a bloody war. And India and Pakistan fought several wars over the Kashmir region. The conflict is still unresolved today.
Note: If you would like to be informed about new blogposts by e-mail, please register at the top right of the page.
Note #2: The next posts will appear in a two-week rhythm
[1] The Conservative Prime Minister Churchill had already offered the status of a Dominion during the war, but only for the time after the end of hostilities and subject to conditions. The INC did not accept this promise.
[2] J. M. Brown & Wm. R. Luis, Oxford Hiostory of then British Empire IV India, Oxfprd University Press (2001)
Commenti