As early as 1917, Britain had toyed with the idea of giving India a measure of self-government: "the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire".
After 1918, nationalism within India intensified. This was probably due to two reasons; many educated nationals in India were far from satisfied with the Morley-Minto reforms. White Englishmen still dominated India and there had been no real decrease in their power or increase in national power. The INC (Indian National Council) wanted a lot more. Woodrow Wilson had stimulated the minds of many people with his belief in national self-determination – i.e. that people from a country had a right to govern themselves. The whole concept of national self-determination undermined the basic idea of the British Empire – that the British governed this empire .For national self-determination to fully work, India would have to be governed by the Indians living there.
Nationalist groups, both Muslims and Hindus created problems for the British, and it looked as though that independence was inevitable. However the question still remained, would it be carried out sooner rather than later. The differences between the Hindus and Muslims were a major reason for the partition of India. The Amritsar massacre incensed nationalism. Which caused many Indians to join the INC and it very quickly became the party of the masses. This was another mistake by the British which angered many, this incident was caused by the Rowlatt Act in 1919, which undermined the Government of India Act, the idea of a ’dual administration’ wasn’t seen as realistic by the British. Therefore it can be true to say that mistakes caused by the British increased nationalistic movements in India thus made it difficult for imperial forces to remain. How could the people of India remain loyal to the British if they were seen as ‘bullies’?
Political leaders played a part in granting India independence. One of the most famous figures was Mahatma Ghandi. He was thorn to the British rule in India. His weapon was the non-violent civil disobedient campaign. Gandhi persuaded many of his followers to use non-violent protests. They had sit-down strikes, they refused to work, they refused to pay their taxes etc. If the British reacted in a heavy-handed manner, it only made the British look worse; essentially, the British would come across as bullies enforcing their rule on the bullied. However, there were those in India who wanted to use more extreme measures. Ghandi was another headache for the British, as he replied to British charges with his ‘Quit India’ campaign. Ghandi was an implacable opponent of British rule. Ghandi was elemental in creating a nationalistic feeling in India. ‘I tell the British, give us chaos. I say in other words, leave India to God’, commenting on what the whole of India wanted. The 1935 Government of India Act had promised eventual self-government for India as a Dominion, and the new constitution introduced in 1937, allowed the INC to take control of most provinces. The nationalists in India were not satisfied with this as the act did not introduce dominion status and white dominions were allowed to control their own defence and foreign policies.
The act’s major failing was that it ignored the religious rivalry between the Muslims and Hindus. Nearly two-thirds of India’s population were Hindus and the Muslims feared that in an independent and democratic India they would be treated unfairly. In the 1937 provincial elections, the Hindus, who dominated the Congress Party under Nehru, won eight out of the eleven provinces. The Muslim League under Jinnah demanded a separate state of their own to be called Pakistan. Both Gandhi and the Congress Party were determined to preserve Indian unity. Such a rivalry between the Hindus and Muslims could only bode ill for the future of India. This rivalry played a significant role in speeding up partition, as the British became more aware that partition was unavoidable.
In 1939 international events intervened with the start of World War II. India’s English viceroy, Victor Alexander John Hope, declared India’s entrance on the side of the Allies without consulting the Indian or Muslim political parties. This once again shows another flaw of the British regime in India, this caused the Indian National Congress to respond by quitting its power in India’s government. They tried to use the war to force the issue with the British, demanding immediate independence. shelved the Indian issue – albeit temporarily. The Indians provided valuable military help in the fight against Japan especially in the campaign in Burma. The British promised dominion status for India once the war had ended.
During the war the Muslim League played a vital part in staying committed to the British, thus becoming more important in Indian politics, which paved the way for partition. Jinnah had always commented on the impossibility of Muslims and Hindus living together in an independent state he proved me right amidst the violence which took place in August 1946 in Calcutta between Hindus and Muslims, were 5,000 people died. Jinnah had pushed and worked hard and as leader of the Muslim League refused to co-operate with the Congress in making a constitution and decided on ‘direct action’ to obtain a separate Pakistan. This was after the announcement that the Governor-General of India, Lord Wavell, invited Nehru to form an interim government in August 1946. Wavell hoped that the creation of an actual government headed by Indian nationals would be supported by all. This spread violence and thus India was condemned to civil war. British had thus realised they had to surrender sooner rather than later and this can be seen by Attlee’s decision to send Lord Mountbatten to be the final viceroy. Mountbatten proposed partition into two separate dominions, India and Pakistan.
After the Second World War, although once again emerging from war as a nominal 'victor', the British economy continued its slide compared to America, and as we all know later to Japan and West Germany, and later still to almost every other major capitalist economy. It was only the strength of the post-war boom - affecting all the capitalist countries - that increased the British economy (and living standards) in absolute terms, and thus for a whole period disguised a catastrophic relative decline. This collapse of British industrial competitiveness, on the world and even the home market, meant titanic political convulsions in a period of world economic stagnation.
After 1945 Britain, with a war-shattered economy, needed the colonies’ valuable raw materials and other resources to help rebuild itself. Although greatly weakened by the war, Britain now had a greater incentive than ever before to keep its colonies, if it could, as shown by its military campaigns to defeat insurgents in Malaya and Kenya. However the idea of keeping their colonies was to be a struggle as the balance of power has shifted. The effects of the war had seen Britain’s status as an imperial power change, the two ‘superpowers’ that emerged from the war was Russia and USA.
After the war Britain did not foster to modernising as in France and Japan. Rather the overriding priority was to correct the principal economic deficiency of the early interwar years - high unemployment. Thus Britain never had a modernisation strategy; it was effectively a strategy for containing unemployment. Similarly, wartime victory encouraged British governments to persist with international policies of questionable economic value. Therefore Britain remained a colonial power, which restricted her freedom of action, without providing many obvious economic benefits. At the same time, she continued to act as a world policeman, and was obliged to maintain higher levels of defence expenditure than her international competitors, and this generated few economic benefits. One of the most disappointing features of the British economy after the Second World War has was its failure to match the growth performance of the other advanced industrialised countries. This relative decline started in the late nineteenth century when a number of European countries began to outstrip Britain. Britain had fallen well down the international living standards league.
The aftermath of the Second World War, played a huge role in granting India independence. The War profoundly affected Britain’s hold on India (and elsewhere). It had become a liability with the necessity of defending it against Japan. Initial failure in the Far East damaged Britain’s position as an “invincible” and great power, and encouraged Gandhi and Congress. Also problems on the domestic front, especially the economic crisis had assured Attlee that it did not have the strength to reimpose control. The decision to leave India was inevitable as the war had affected India also and Britain’s economy wasn’t strong enough to defend India, and thus India was becoming an economic liability as Britain was expending scarce reserves on famine relief. Enough was enough Clement Attlee wanted to push ahead with solving what was seen as the "Indian Problem" .
The new elected Labour government had pledged to give India responsible self-government in its manifesto. The Labour government in 1945 was also influential in the partition of India as they wanted to focus on issues at home and not be in charge of affairs abroad after the war. The new British Prime Minister Clement Attlee had insisted that British rule in India must end, and quickly. It had been Labour policy since MacDonald’s 1929 government to work towards dominion status for India. In 1942 the Coalition government, despite Churchill’s premiership and record on the issue of independence, made an offer of independence after the War, an offer partly made out of political and military considerations given the state of the War in Asia at the time. Labour politicians had developed good relations with Gandhi, and Attlee and Bevin believed the empire was as much a liability as a help in times of danger. By 1945 the real problem for the Labour government was not whether to grant independence, but how to avoid bloodshed between Congress and the Muslim League, Hindus and Muslims. The original timetable of British withdrawal by June 1948 had to be brought forward after Mountbatten’s arrival (as last Viceroy) and assessment, including the decision made with Attlee that partition was required. Lord Mountbatten concluded that peace could only be achieved if partition was introduced. Mountbatten became convinced that any delay would increase violence and he pushed forward the date for Britain leaving India to August 1947.
The new India and Pakistan were born in bloodshed. It was a major decision taken by the Labour government, given Britain’s pride in having India for so long as ‘the jewel in the crown’ of the empire. In August 1947, the Indian Independence Act was signed. This separated the Muslim majority areas (in the north-west and north-east regions of India) from India to create the independent state of Pakistan. What we all knew that was inevitable was achieved. The struggle for partition had come to an end. British withdrawal from India was a commitment and policy fulfilled by the Labour government. Nationalists and the Second World War played its part in securing independence of Pakistan and India. Both had damaged Britain’s credibility as a world power and both had an effect on Britain’s imperial status.
