Discussion of Relation Between India and The British Empire

Before 1944, India controlled by the British saw the development of nationalist movements such as the civil disobedience movement (Salt Satyagraha) in the 1930s, and the ‘Quit India’ movement of 1942. This resulted with India gaining independence in 1947. Within Britain this was also period of change that led to the decolonisation of India; World War II and its aftermath was the cause and context of economic depressions, changing social values, and an increase in the importance of international relations. British motives are a focus of the metropole school when considering the decolonisation of India and due to its authorship, audience, and focus, this source is especially significant to understanding the British motives during the decolonisation of India.

This source is a private letter between two significant individuals in the British government – Lord Wavell (an officer who fought on India’s North West Frontier and later on holding posts such as the Assistant Adjutant General in the War office and later head of the East command in 1939) and Winston Churchill (in Prime Ministerial office at the time). The authorship and audience mean this source has the potential to be insightful into the British motives and any conflicts between individuals. This letter shows that, for Wavell, the British motives during the decolonisation of India are “strategic security”, status in “statesmanship and fair dealing” and “economic well-being”. It also shows that he considered India and their proceedings during decolonisation as essential to relationships with other Asian countries such as China and the Far East. Wavell makes it clear that he believes the process of decentralisation reforms couldn’t be stopped - the Indian movement to independence couldn’t be prevented - so Britain should approach the topic as working out the best way to “convince India of British sympathy”, and to produce more British loyalists within India. This letter supports the idea that Britain gave India independence arose “primarily out of necessity” as David Pierce states .

The source shows the heterogenous view on India, since other members of parliament and the British public had different opinions on the control of India by the British. Other MPs seem unconcerned with the nationalist movement in India with the debates on such within the Houses of Commons only having forty MPs show up, and the meetings of the Dominion Premiers not even mentioning it. The British public similarly is as unconcerned with British prosperity as Wavell is and would not be “associated with a policy of repression”. The source shows how long-term changes had affected the way the British could rule India, not only due to its own population becoming disillusioned with conflict after two world wars, but also because of the international situation. Whilst at the start of the process of building the British Empire internationally it was common practise and so accepted (not of course by the colonial populations but by other European powers who ruled at this time), however, after World War II, it was clear countries couldn’t stay isolated in issues of moral actions. Just a year after this source was published, the United Nations and the International Military Tribunal was set up with the new laws against aggressive action on other nations.

Another side of the debate of whether or not Britain intended to decolonise India and so what their motives were in the proceedings, is supported by Bipan Chandra who argued that the work of nationalists within India, specifically Gandhi, as the reason for the independence through a “self-sacrificing spirit of the masses”. This leads to the discussion of British motives being defensive during this time, with the elites not supporting India’s independence until it was forced by public opinion with the Labour win in the 1945 general election just two years before the independence, and very quickly turned to forming the nature of the post imperial relationship . In contrast, Judith Brown argues that Britain did maintain the long-term aim to give India independence but the war situation drew out the process with the need for Indian troops, and also the political/religious divisions of India meant that the British had to slowly transfer power to avoid a collapse of the newly formed democracy .

This source is also significantly relevant to these two other schools because it shows that the mass number of conservative MPs were unconcerned with the situation in India before 1945, and also because it discusses the importance of the relationship between independent India and Britain in terms of the future of British trade in Asia and the Middle East.

The source of Lord Wavell’s letter to Winston Churchill in 1944 shows this interactive nature of the British motives, situation, and the situation in India itself. It does this through its context and its nature; it’s significant to speculate that this letter was sent with a professional tone (be that hostile or friendly) that Prime Minister Churchill at the time wasn’t acting on the need to maintain a good relationship with India. Churchill, rather than maintaining a cooperative relationship between India and Britain, chose to rule with force - whether wrongly or rightly - with his beliefs in eugenics coming to full force, arguably due to his belief on the inferiority of the Indian natives and hatred for Gandhi leading to his lack of action to help the population during the Bengal famine. This complicates the study of British motives during such a time where the leader contradicts what the population states; according to Charmley, Churchill - despite being the leading figure in the British side of action during the decolonisation of India - was a part of a right-wing fringe group compared to the more liberal views of other politicians and the general public .  

To conclude, discussing the motives of Britain and therefore the end goals of the set of reforms and repressions within India in the 1900’s is an ongoing event and lately there has been an increase in a more holistic point of view, with both the independence movement within India and the situation politically, socially, and economically within Britain (whether it wanted to maintain its control over India or not) coming together to explain the reason for the independence in 1947. The national movement in India encouraged sympathy and support from the British public as well as international powers whilst also maintaining an economic drain which became unbearable after the second World War.