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

Authors Avatar

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. They accepted British Raj as they had accepted Mogul Raj – because it was there. Some Indians who received western education was actually grateful to the Empire, acknowledging how the British Empire had emancipated their minds. However, as the British Empire entered the 20th century, nationalism grew and it became harder for the British to control India. After the Amritsar Massacre, the Congress, under Gandhi’s leadership, led all-India nationalist movements, such as the non-co-operation movement in 1920, the Salt Satyagraha in 1930 and the Quit India movement in 1942. These all-India movements were significant in that they increased the costs of maintaining the empire, as rebellions were costly to repress. For Britain, this undermined the purpose of maintaining an Empire, as they wanted economic benefits out of it, not an economic burden. There were occasions when Britain seemed to be giving in to the nationalist pressures; the agitations caused by the Partition of Bengal led to the Morley-Minto reforms, which allowed the elections of Indians into legislative councils for the first time, and the nationalist demands of the Home Rule Leagues led to the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, which increased Indian self government in the provincial level. Therefore it is possible to argue that nationalism was significant in changing the relationship between Britain and India in that nationalism pressurized Britain to allow more Indian self-government.

Join now!

        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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay