A turning point in the dismantling of Europe’s Asian and African empires took place in August 1947 when the Indian people gained independence from Great Britain and the new states of India and Pakistan were created. After the greatest imperial power released its hold on the “jewel in the crown” of its empire, nationalist leaders throughout Asia and Africa demanded equal treatment and European politicians found it more difficult to justify colonial rule.British and Indian leaders had debated the timing and framework of Indian independence for decades, but World War II brought the issue to a head. Many Indians, still embittered by the meager benefits they had received for their sacrifices in World War I, showed little enthusiasm for the British cause in World War II, especially after the British viceroy announced that India was at war with Germany in September 1939 without even consulting Indian leaders. In 1942, after Japan’s lightning conquest of Southeast Asia, the British government sent Sir Stafford Cripps to Delhi to offer India dominion status after the war if India would support the war against Japan. Negotiations broke down, however, leading Gandhi to launch the “Quit India” movement, his last nationwide passive resistance campaign against British rule. Anti-British feeling intensified in 1943 when a disastrous famine took between 1 million and 3 million lives, and the pro-Japanese Indian National Army was organized by Subhas Bose and declared war on Great Britain.
A shift in postwar British politics also affected India’s future. The 1945 elections initiated six years of rule by the Labour Party, which had less enthusiasm for the idea of empire than the Conservatives. In the face of mounting restiveness in India, Prime Minister Clement Attlee dispatched a three-person cabinet mission to India in early 1946 charged with preserving Indian unity in the face of Hindu-Muslim enmity and arranging for India’s independence as soon as possible. Although the Hindus and Muslims could never reconcile their differences, on February 20, 1947, the Labour government went ahead and announced British rule would end in India no later than June 1948.
This led to an emotional two-day debate in Parliament in which Churchill’s Conservatives and some Liberals argued that independence should be delayed. The Labour Party had a strong majority, however, and in March 1947 Parliament approved its plan. At midnight on August 14-15, 1947, predominately Hindu India and predominately Muslim Pakistan became independent states.
The excerpts I would like you to read are from the parliamentary debates of March 4 and 5, 1947 (you can read them by clicking here). All the speakers are opposing a proposal of John Anderson, a Liberal representing the Scottish universities, that Great Britain should promise independence by June 1948 but withdraw the offer and require further negotiations if a suitable Hindu-Muslim agreement could not be achieved.
After reading the document, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: What were the points of disagreement among members of Parliament about the benefits and harm of British colonial rule in India? Some speakers who believed British colonialism had benefited India still supported independence. Why? The critics of British rule in India supported immediate independence. What was their line of argument? According to the speakers, what military and economic realities make it impractical to continue British rule in India? How do the speakers view developments in India as part of broader historical trends? Most of the speakers were members of the Labour Party and thus sympathetic to socialism. What examples of socialist perspectives can you find in their speeches? Your thoughts…
10 comments:
The people who said that India benefited Britain said they needed to give India Independence because although the two countries helped each other in ways it was also a financial burden. The Britain economy and govt was suffering and having to maintain and keep up with India costs a lot and much time needs to be devoted to it. Giving Independence to the Indians would make them happier and allow the British to focus on themselves which is quickly corroding away. They think that India should be governed by themselves since the people who live there knows what needs to be done next. Some of te people disputed on how they should run their govt. One guy said that it should be a dictatorship, something that the British should never do themselves. Others thought it should be a democracy.
The first guy believes that Britain has helped India by teaching the people western government policies, by getting them ready to govern themselves. He also says that the British have improved India's standard of living. He actually thought the British had really helped india, but it seemed that towards the end he was saying, everything has deteriorated so badly let's just get out so that it's not our responsibility anymore. Mr. Sorenson was interesting. He dsagrees with the first guy, saying that the British have not improved India's standard of living, but used its original wealth for their own benefit. Not only does he immediately start off by insulting Sir T. Moore, he goes on to say that the Indian ppl were doing fine before British rule, and that they had established schools and economic systems when the Bitish were still "in a condition of barbarism and savagery". I'm guessing he wasn't very popular after this speech. The main argument given by the ppl that support independence was the obvious: to keep India any longer, the British were going to have to fight for it. And they already promised independence. The last guy, Harold Davies, brings up the rest of Asia, how independence movements are being sparked everywhere as a result of "The wars on the capitalist system". It was almost like he was blaming this capitalist system for starting these movements.
Now in the document, the person talking said that one of the reasons why he is giving up India was to not back on their promises. That was just to make the Britts seem as if they were good and kept their promises. We know the real reason is because the Brittish empire was falling apart and they were bankrupt and had to give it up.
Decolinization was the only way to truly save britain. Plus , it was a chance to redeem themselves from their broken promises from WWI and WWII. the first "speaker" was convinced that britain had bettered India with their occupation. The second "speaker" points out the ways that britain did NOT help india.
India was becoming a huge burden on Britian and was becoming hard to financial support and keep up with them. This was an easy out because Britian promised India independence after WWI so now they could finally just say they were giving them their independence and everyone could be happy.
Britain giving India away hurt and helped Britain at the same time. It helped by giving Britain a chance to focus on itself and its own problems but it also hurt because it lost such a large area of resources and income. This should have been a great thing for India but it ended up leading to fighting between Indian's over religous disputes which ended up breaking the country in two.
India was a hard colony to let go of for Britain. It definately had its major spice and textile supply during colonization. Decolonization really saved Great Britain. They were in deep finacial problems and just could not handle the chore. of course britain did not give up without a fight, but they finally realized (made it seem they were th good guys) that this was the best idea.
I'm glad Brittan finally let go of India. They seem too dominant to just be a colony. They truly are the inovators of decolonization.
one thing that the speech reminded me of was british vs. belgians, in terms that when the brits leave a country it is in order, while the belgians leave countries (like the congo) in disarray. it's good at least that the british are at least breaking away from india.
It was mentioned that some of the downers of British control of India was that India was rather costly to keep up with. The economy of Great Britain was already suffering along with their government and needed to focus on themselves rather than India. Some believed that the Indians should have been given the ability to run themselves while Britain was in this crisis and couldn't tend to both regions. The decolonization of British colonies allowed Great Britain to step back and focus on and fix themselves in this time of crisis. Even though it seems that the loss of India would be devastating because Great Britain used India to get more resources and whatnot, it was a lot less of a loss than everything crumbling to pieces because Britain was unwilling to have a "yard sale" of colonies.
Post a Comment