Analyse the factors that led to the growth of independence movements in any one non-European colonial state.

Sanya Aurora

Essay Question: Analyse the factors that led to the

growth of independence movements in any one non-European colonial state.

Immediately after World War 2, there was a period during which countries began to decolonise. The factors that led to this loss of colonial power after the War vary from nation to nation. In the case of India, the major factors were the decline of the British Empire, and nationalism that had been growing even prior to the War. Subhash Chandra Bose wrote-“The individual must die, so that the nation may live. Today I must die so that India may win freedom and glory” 1.. This is an example of the nationalist school of thought that had been rising in India. The situation of the British at this time gave the freedom movement the final push it needed They had not emerged a world power after the war, and they no longer had much economic and political incentive to remain in India. This essay will illustrate these factors.

In no colonial country can one expect the ruling country to have a perfect relationship with the natives of the colony. While the British did try to improve the social situation in India by trying to abolish Sati and trying to introduce other such reforms, they did not take the Indian perspective into consideration. As a result, many different groups of people were disenchanted by the British rule. Under the British, the land revenue collected was greater than the revenue collected by the Mughals over a period of 30 years. The farmers were expected to pay the land revenue even if crops failed that year. The Indians were forced to export raw materials to Britain and import readymade British goods at high prices. The peasants desperately wanted to be free from this economic exploitation.
The British placed many demands on the Indian soldiers including having them serve far away from their homes. For Brahmins, it was a taboo to cross the sea. Thus for them, serving overseas meant losing their caste. Along with this they were not promoted to high ranks in the army, and were paid a great deal less than the British soldiers serving in the British Indian army.

This is a preview of the whole essay

When World War 2 broke out, the British jumped into the fray without consulting the members of Congress. The Indians felt that they should get effective power in return for their services in the War. The Viceroy promised only Dominion status, which fell short of the demands of the Congress. The August Offer made in 1940 also fell short of the demands of the people, as it gave no definite timeframe for the transfer of power to Indians. Like many prior acts and recommendations of the British, it left the Indians dissatisfied. A prominent example is the Government of India Act of 1919, where the government promised only very restricted authority to the Indians. Another example is when Nehru demanded complete independence, ‘purna swaraj’, by the end of 1928, Gandhi demanding Dominion status after one year. When the British failed to deliver either, the Civil Disobedience Act broke out. 2.

The factors that led up to the Non-Cooperation movement in 1920 were also largely centred on British misrule. The Rowlatt Act that was passed in 1919 implied that nationalists could be arrested without trial. Along with this and other terms, the Act suspended the right of Habeas Corpus. This spread outrage among the educated Indian nationalists. The most horrific incident was the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre on April 13th 1909. This was the incident that kicked off the Non-Cooperation Movement, above other events. An unarmed and peaceful, albeit large crowd had gathered at the park to protest the arrest of prominent leaders. General Reginald Dyer blocked off the on exit with his troops and gave the order to open fire. Hundreds of people were killed. The Indians were aghast at this attack, and thus they all wanted to go along with Gandhi’s movement.

The paragraph above illustrates the discontent of the people, that led to many protest movements and the growth of nationalism. However, there was also disenchantment in British and French colonies in Africa. The difference in India, which led to these organised uprisings, was that there was better infrastructure and a larger percentage of educated middle class people. The rise of the middle class is a very important factor when considering the growth of nationalism. These leaders were lawyers, doctors, teachers etc. who had a western education and understood the policies of the British and could become leaders for the masses. They recognized and tried to come with solutions to the economic problems in India. It was through this understanding that the boycott campaign against foreign goods was started, which made the country more self-sufficient and again spread nationalist thought in the nation. Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak recognised that the involvement of the masses was essential to the freedom movement. In 1906 he revived the Ganapati celebrations. Earlier the worship of the deity took place in people’s homes as a private affair, but as religious congregations were permitted by the British, the festival was made public, and became a forum for political discussion. The leaders also revived India’s glorious past, to inspire the people. Pamphlets were printed out to inform people about the situation in India.

All the movements required a lot of communication, across the vast country of India. If it had been Africa, this communication would have been scarce, except for along the coastlines. The British had invested in Indian infrastructure. There was a network of roads and railway lines linking major cities. Edwin Arnold said- “Railways may do for India what dynasties have never done- what the genius of Akbar the Magnificent could not effect by government, nor the cruelty of Tipu Saheb by violence; they have made India a nation.” 1. Messages could be passed with speed due to the introduction of a modern postal service and telegraph systems. Lala Lajpat Rai in Punjab could have easily communicated with Tilak in Maharashtra.

The emergence of nationalist thought in the masses was still a problem, however. This problem began to be solved only by the emergence of a leader, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi believed in the power of the peasants and fought many battles for them. He used to go live in their villages and he gained a lot of popularity with the masses. He was a middle man and united the different groups in India. Without his concept of non-cooperation, the Indian independence movement might have been a great deal more violent. He even managed to unite, to some extent Hindus and Muslims, which is a problem that cannot be solved even today. He asked the Hindus to support the Muslims during the Khilafat Movement in 1919. As a result the Muslims followed his direction during the Non-Cooperation Movement. When communal riots started in Calcutta in 1947, he began a hunger strike to stop them. He used his moral importance to create unity between the two communities.

Without the above factors, the Indian Independence Movement would not have been what it was. However, what finally brought about independence was the decline of the British Empire after the World War. The combination of the many protest movements with their inability and lack of desire to hold on to their colony is what caused the Indians to win independence when they did.

At the end of the First World War, India was in debt to Britain. The British policy at the time was aimed at creating favourable conditions to pay Britain back. The boycott campaign also adversely affected the British economy. The British allowed India to trade with other Dominions, albeit at fixed tariffs. The British were already moving towards economic depression and this strengthened the Indian economy. Now the British did not have much incentive to remain in India.

The British were losing their grip on many colonies during and after the war. The natives of many colonies were starting to revolt. This ruined the myth of European supremacy and gave new the Indians new inspiration to fight back.

After the War, there was an economic depression all over the world. The Indians had to face increasing economic hardships, along with drought and epidemics. Indian industry began to fail. There was a high rate of unemployment, with both the middle class and the peasants. To top it off, there was increased taxation, which caused an increase of the desire for independence in both urban and rural Indians.

The British did not emerge as a World Power after the Second World War. Their economic and military power was shattered. They no longer had the resources to hold on to their Indian colony. They had lost manpower during the war, and the British soldiers no longer wanted to serve away from their homes. They had fought for 6 years and did not want to serve in India, suppressing the Indian freedom struggle. With all the protest movements in India and the problems they were facing in Europe, it was no longer a political or economic advantage to have India as a colony.

The factors that led to the growth of independence movements lie in a delicate balance. If the Indians hadn’t had concrete reasons for wanting to British to leave India there would not have been as many anti-colonial movements, and in turn there wouldn’t have been as much nationalist thought. If the British had not invested in India the independence movement would not have been as developed as it was. The work of the nationalist leaders set the scene for decolonisation. The decline of the British Empire came about when the nationalist movement was at its fever pitch. Had the situation been different, perhaps India would have achieved decolonisation years after 1947. We cannot say which factor is the most important, because without one the other may not have been relevant at all. However, the above points do provide quite a comprehensive view of the factors that affected the growth of independence movements in India.

Bibliography:

Sequeira, Dolly Ellen. “Total History and Civics Class 10”. New Delhi: Morning Star, 2005
Thorn, Gary. “End of Empires: European Decolonisation1919-80. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2005