However, increasing self government did not lead to independence. Although Indians may argue that nationalism led to independence, this is an exaggerated claim, as it was Britain, not India and its nationalism, which ultimately controlled the events. Nationalism had many weaknesses; Congress, the centre of Indian nationalism, received hardly any support from the Muslims and other minorities. Also, the sheer size of India and the diversity of people living in it posed a tough challenge for the Congress which tried to co-ordinate the nationalist movements. Without leaders to guide the masses of Indians, nationalism in India crumbled, as was the case in the Quit India movement. The British incarcerated the Congress leaders within 24 hours of the commencement of the Quit India movement, and it was effectively suppressed in 6 weeks. Partly due to this weakness of Indian nationalism, and partly because of the strength of British co-ordination, Britain never lost complete control in India, and it proved that it could suppress the rebellions without giving away concessions; it did so in 1922(Non-co-operation) and 1942(Quit India). Also, concessions usually came when either the Labour Party or Liberal Party, which were sympathetic towards the Congress, was in power in London. Contrastingly, when Churchill, a diehard conservative, was Prime Minister, he refused to give India more self-government under the pressures of nationalism; he was forced, though, by the wartime conditions in WW2, to increase self-government through the Cripps Mission, which will be discussed later in the essay. Therefore, it could be said that (before the Second World War) Britain could effectively decide whether to give out concessions and increase Indian self-government or not, which means that British attitude towards India was significant in the relationship between Britain and India.
The changing British attitude towards the Empire in India explains why Britain allowed increasing Indian self-government throughout 1900s-1930s. Economic benefit had been the main reason for the expansion of the British Empire in India. 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 India (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). 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 everyone. 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. When, after 1917, the British expanded their policy horizon to embrace ‘responsible government’ for India, they did so on the specific understanding that the country would remain an ‘integral part of the British Empire. The Government of India Act of 1935, which concede the substance of self-government at the provincial level, contained significant checks designed to protect and perpetuate a hard core of British control. Even the Labour Party, which was sympathetic towards Indian self-government, did not see abandoning empire as an option for Britain directly after the Second World War.
As Britain entered the 1940s, it began to lose control, and was compelled to accelerate independence, because of the effects of the Second World War. The War forced Britain to grant Indian independence immediately in four ways; it weakened British control of India, it severely damaged British economy, it put Britain under the mercy of India and the United States and was forced to promise independence, and it changed the world situation in which imperialism became irrelevant. Firstly, the War severely damaged the Indian Civil Service, which was the British Empire’s primary administrative body in India, as the manpower needs prevented London from replacing the ICS men who left the service for retirement or military duties. Indeed, Cripps admitted the damaged done to the ICS led to the “weakening of the machinery of British control”. Furthermore, the wartime strains caused inflation and serious shortage of food; when the procurement system in Bengal collapsed, 1.5 million Indians starved to death. This was an irreparable damage done to the credibility of British Rule, and this further weakened British control in India. Secondly, the War posed serious economic consequences for Britain. During the War, concentrating upon producing munitions caused Britain to export less to India. These markets were often lost permanently as India replaced British imports with home production. And while British exports to India decreased, the rising costs of the empire meant that Britain could no longer meet the costs of maintaining the empire in India. Britain was further pushed to grant India independence because the wartime expenses left Britain with a debt to India of £1,300 million. With a weaker economy after the War, it was impossible for Britain to pay back this debt, so the only alternative was to trade independence with solvency. Thirdly, after the fall of France, Singapore and Rangoon, Britain had to gain all the military support and political acquiescence it could receive. To gain the support of the Congress, Churchill sent Cripps to India with an offer designed to break the political deadlock. Churchill had also been constantly pressurized by Roosevelt, who disliked the British Empire’s role as a commercial closed shop, to take steps towards Indian independence. Cripps’ offer (which was not quite what Churchill intended) was that India would be granted full dominion status immediately, with the chance to secede from the Commonwealth and go for total independence. Although the offer was rejected by the Congress, Britain was forced to grant India independence after the war. There could be no retraction of the offer of Independence which Cripps had made, especially after Britain had repeatedly referred to colonial emancipation and national self-determination in Allied wartime propaganda statements. Lastly, the War had changed the world situation into one hostile for the existence of the British Empire. While Britain was relegated into the second division of powers, the United States emerged as the new leader of the West; it was increasingly up to the United 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 decolonisation.
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.
Bibliography
Judith Brown, Modern India, published in 1994
Nirad Chaudhuri, Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, published in 2008
Ian Copland, India 1885-1947, published in 2001
Patrick French, Liberty or Death, published in 1998
Lawrence James, The Rise & Fall of the British Empire, published in 1998
John Keay, India: A History, published in 2000
Tim Leadbeater, Britain and India 1845-1947 published in 2008
Gary Thorn, End of Empires: European Decolonisation 1919-80, published in 2000
Judith Brown, Modern India, p.152
Nirad Chaudhuri, The Autobiography of an Unknown Indian Part II, p.54
Judith Brown, Modern India, p.308
John Keay, India: A History, p.499
Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, p.420
Judith Brown, Modern India, p.196
Judith Brown, Modern India, p.292
Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, p.430
Ian Copland, India 1885-1947, p.30
Ian Copland, India 1885-1947, p.64
Gary Thorn, End of Empires: European Decolonisation 1919-80, p.38
Ian Copland, India 1885-1947, p.69
Gary Thorn, End of Empires: European Decolonisation 1919-80, p.39
John Keay, India: A History, p.497
Patrick French, Liberty or Death, p.138
Ian Copland, India 1885-1947, p.69
Gary Thorn, End of Empires: European Decolonisation 1919-80, p.42