• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Assess the significance of Indian nationalism in the period 1845-1947 in changing Britains relationship with its empire in India.

Extracts from this document...


Assess the significance of Indian nationalism in the period 1845-1947 in changing Britain's relationship with its empire in India. In judging the significance of nationalism in the relationship between Britain and India, we need to determine who had the control of events. If it was India, then nationalism was significant; if it was Britain, not so much. One could argue that Indians forced the British out of India with nationalist movements, which weakened British rule and increased costs of maintaining India. On the other hand, British rule was never overcome by any nationalist movements; thus one could argue that Britain was in control of the events, and that it was the British attitude towards India, not nationalism, which was significant in the changing relationship between Britain and India. However, after the Second World War started, Britain clearly lost control, and it was the effects of the War and the changing international situations that forced Britain to accelerate Independence. Many Indian historians believe that nationalism led to independence from British rule by pressurizing Britain to allow more self-government. This view is certainly credible; the survival of the British Empire in India largely depended on the consent of the Indians. It would have been impossible to govern the subcontinent with brute force, as the British were greatly outnumbered by the Indians (1 British for every 2000 Indians). The British had enjoyed stability in the 19th century because most Indian people were indifferent to the legitimacy of British rule. ...read more.


Britain could buy Indian resources (such as raw cotton) cheaply, process them in Britain and sell the manufactured produces at a high price to India and other parts of the Empire. However, especially after the First World War, India's industrial manufacture expanded India became more self-sufficient, which replaced goods normally imported by India6 (i.e. British exports to India decreased). Thus, the economic value of India as a colony decreased. It was reasonable for Britain, whose economy was weakened by WW1, to allow more self-government to decrease the expenditure of resources (such as in the 1935 Act)7. Public opinion about the empire had also changed. Previously, the idea of Empire in the minds of the British was associated with the spirit and the practise of flag-waving; that is the British viewed the empire with patriotism, pride and power. Now, the British public had a deeper knowledge of the empire, regrets for some exploits in the past, and a sincere desire to develop the colonies for the benefit of everyone8. Britain would do this by educating the Indians so that they would be competent enough to govern themselves. However, it is important to note that in the 1930s, although the British allowed more self government for India and accepted that British rule in India would not last forever, they were not willing to grant India independence in the immediate future. ...read more.


States, who wanted to trade freely throughout the world by breaking down the Sterling Area, to decide whether the British imperialism was continue. The emerging Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union called for high levels of defence spending, which required the reduction of costs by decolonizing. British politics had changed too; imperialism had become incompatible with the modernisation of British politics, and the 'march to democracy' had to involve decolonisation17. In conclusion, nationalism was significant in that it increased the cost of the Empire and encouraged the British to allow more concessions and Indian self government. Despite this, it is clear that Britain was in control in India for most of the time during 1845-1947, and although Britain gave more self-government to Indians, it was given with British consent, not reluctance. Moreover, Britain successfully managed to keep on withholding the grant for independence. Therefore it was the British attitude towards the empire which is the most significant in the relationship between Britain and India. However, Britain lost control of events in India after the commencement of the Second World War, which had a profound effect in accelerating Indian independence, by weakening British economy and British control in India, by forcing Britain to make concessions and by making the British Empire anachronistic in new era of post-war world. Thus, it was the Second World War and its effects, rather than British attitude, which was significant in the last few years of British rule. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Constitutional Nationalism succeeded in achieving its aims whereas revolutionary nationalism failed and cultural nationalism ...

    However, although the rebellion itself seemed to be a dismal failure it is important to consider the success that Emmet achieved in the aftermath of his rebellion and even in his death. The legacy of Emmet and his rebellion on Irish history has had arguably greater impact than the rebellion.

  2. The British reforms to change India failed because the British would sometimes use force ...

    During the Durbar the Indian Princes expressed their loyalty to the British and her King. The King took this moment to reunite the two parts of Bengal and rename Delhi as the capital, as it was closer to the India's historic centre.

  1. Growth of Democracy in 19th Centuary Britain.

    b) The chartists failure lies in their poor leadership and being badly organised. Digression into other issues and being split in two left the chartists cause to be abandoned and unsuccessful. c) There was an increased social change in the 1850's, brought on by urbanisation and industrialisation.

  2. Within the context of 1880-1980, to what extent did British actions accelerate British decolonisation ...

    WW1 expanded the Empire both geographically and as a world power, with Britain gaining several new mandates from the Ottoman Empire. The geographical expansion of the Empire post-WW1 and the reluctance of the metropole to grant these new mandates independence6, imply that attitudes had not changed and many (both in government and in society)

  1. Millicent Fawcett's significance

    Fawcett believed the NUWSS should campaign for a wide variety of causes and that they should campaign through constitutional methods. Millicent Fawcett and the NUWSS worried that the militant tactics of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) would isolate prospective supporters and would prove to the opposition that women could not be responsible or trustworthy with the vote.

  2. How far do you agree with the view that cultural imperialism was the main ...

    factor in the expansion of the British Empire, as there was an evidently more support for imperialism back home in England. Pugh claims that the most ?striking symptom?[3] of imperial from 1880 onwards was the apparent growth of ?enthusianm?3 for Empire, amongst the ordinary citizens.

  1. The changing position of women and the suffrage question. Revision notes

    Adding Militancy to the Campaign 1903-1914 * The emergence of militancy amongst the movement is closely linked to the ideas of Emmeline Pankhurst. A radical newspaper began to support Pankhurst and her family and offered financial support, however as a member of the Independent Labour Party she insisted that the funds were used to build a socialist meeting hall.

  2. Assess the significance of Owain Glyndwr's revolt

    He formed coalitions with both Henry IV?s internal and external enemies which hold huge short-term worth in the context of his revolt. The first agreement he made was with Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March. It can be said that hold?s the most amount of significance in relation the revolt due

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work