India’s struggle for freedom and its consequent independence from the British colonial rule occupies a significant space in British Imperial history, inspiring a debate that attempts to decode the collapse of Britain’s imperialistic ambitions on the subcontinent. The debate has been ensued by historiographical interpretations on the nature and causes behind the downfall of imperialism, analysing social, political, economic and cultural dimensions of the context. Judith M. Brown points at the significance of Indian independence in the imperialist backdrop, stating that the event had a manifold impact on British imperialism as well as on international scenario in the post World War context, beginning with drastic changes in the “logistics of the Empire”1. Brown calls pre-independent India the “cornerstone”2 of British colonial “economic, military and political power”3. Studying the various historiographical perspectives available on the subject, this paper will argue that the decline of British Imperialism in India was not the result of a uni-dimensional cause, but the outcome of a number of factors that contradict or complement each other.
A study of the decay of imperialism on Indian Territory would trace back to the advent of imperialism to the country. Norman Etherington tries to explain imperialism as a phenomenon interlinked with capitalism, observing that the former arose out of the capitalist nation’s need to expand its markets as a primary solution to a possible proletarian discontent in the face of a dwindling economic scope4. Arguing that while imperialism was “in some ways good for
1Judith M. Brown, India; Wm. Roger Louis. D.Litt., FBA (Ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume IV- The Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press: 1999), 421.
2Ibid., 421.
3Ibid , 421.
4Norman Etherington, Reconsidering Theories of Imperialism, History and Theory, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Feb., 1982), pp. 1-36 (Blackwell Publishing for Wesleyan University).
capital”5, Etherington says that the continued scramble for markets across the globe would ultimately usher in an era fraught with rivalry between competing capitalist nations. The consequence of this phenomenon would be the development of hitherto underdeveloped regions that would in turn bring about an “antithesis”6 whereby a class-conscious working class would join hands with an impoverished peasantry to fight the colonial government for “national liberation”7.
Etherington’s notion of a “century of war”8 closely resembles Rosa Luxemburg’s interpretation of the World War. Considering the World War as the culmination of conflict between capitalist nations seeking to divide the world among themselves, Luxemburg said that imperialism marked the last phase of capitalism which was developing towards the turning point of “turning point of the present world war”9. If imperialism is indeed perceived as the zenith of capitalism and mutual struggle for markets abroad, then what marked the collapse of British imperialism in India? Etherington and Luxemburg talk about the conflict between capitalist countries resulting in a world war. But, did World War herald the end of Britain’s imperialistic aspirations in the Raj? If it did, then how does Etherington’s concept of a joint struggle staged by the peasant and the proletariat fit into the Indian context?
According to Paul B. Rich it was the First and the Second World Wars that corroded Britain’s
5Norman Etherington, Reconsidering Theories of Imperialism, History and Theory, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Feb., 1982), pp. 1-36 (Blackwell Publishing for Wesleyan University), 3.
6Ibid.,3.
7Ibid., 3.
8Ibid., 3.
9Ibid., 11.
“early imperialist climate”, an heirloom from the preceding Victorian and Edwardian epochs10. According to Judith Brown, what brought about the end of the British Raj were not so much the national movement and the prolific changes taking place in political and social spectrum as the “pressure of war”11. However, Brown also says that the relatively peaceful exit of the British from Indian Territory implied that the national government replacing the colonial rule would follow a path of continuity rather than marking a break with the previous administration. According to Brown, “imperial endings powerfully affect what comes after”12. Hence, as Brown puts it, the country “inherited a structure of administration designed to achieve Imperial ends rather than goals of national reconstruction”13.
Etherington’s concept of a struggle for national liberation contributing to the collapse of British imperialism in India is discussed by Brown who observes that the unprecedented turmoil witnessed by India during the period between the beginning of First World War to the second half of the twentieth century unfurled a national movement that influenced the country’s socio-political and economic situations. Although Brown argues that it was the far-reaching political developments that resulted in independence in 1947, she points out four major aspects of India’s relationship with Britain in the face of an impending collapse of imperialism: the first of these was Britain’s inability to protect its long term interests in India, which persuaded the imperial government to chalk out plans to facilitate a gradual withdrawal.
10Paul B. Rich, British Imperial Decline and the forging of English Patriotic Memory, c1918-1968 (Great Britain: History of European Ideas. Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 659-680, 1988), 659.
11Judith M. Brown, India; Wm. Roger Louis. D.Litt., FBA (Ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume IV- The Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press: 1999), 445.
12Ibid., 444.
13Ibid., 444.
The rising popular tensions in the Raj made an effective control over the dominion increasingly difficult, thereby accelerating the downfall of British imperialism in India. This sentiment was reflected in the Cabinet minutes of the Labour Government, as it concluded that the unreliability of the Indian army had reached a point where there was a constant threat of things getting out of control if faced with situations that could trigger a civil war14. According to WM Roger Louis, India was “becoming ungovernable”15, presenting the Colonial administration with a political and military crises of the ‘first magnitude’16. On similar lines, Lord Wavell remarked in 1947 that an attempt to control India in spite of having lost the power to do so would prove fatal to the government17.
Judith M. Brown points at the evolution of a powerful national movement as the next theme that determined the decline of British imperialism in India. Brown draws attention towards its ‘attempted’ international image as one guided by Gandhi, juxtaposing it with the actual limitations of its scope and its “strategic effectiveness”18. The question here would be whether Brown’s definition of the national movement would be conspicuously defined by political changes, a valid question since Brown, in the beginning of her essay, states that political changes brought forth India’s independence. This definition restricts the scope of national movement and its role in the collapse of British imperialism.
14WM Roger Louis, The Dissolution of the British Empire, chapter 14; Wm. Roger Louis. D.Litt., FBA (Ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume IV- The Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press: 1999), 332.
15Ibid., 332.
16Ibid., 332.
17Ibid., 332.
18Judith M. Brown, India; WM. Roger Louis. D.Litt., FBA (Ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume IV- The Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press: 1999), 422.
An alternative explanation is provided by ID Gaur who questions the interpretations of Indian national movement, stating that any attempt to “homogenize” the people so as to portray a unified movement merely reveals an effort to hide the “hegemony” of a particular class19. The national movement was a multifaceted phenomenon that successfully encapsulated a number of contradictions within itself. Gaur then observes that these paradoxes manifested themselves at “various levels”20, such as between British Imperialism and the Indian farmers, British Imperialism and the Indian National Congress, British Imperialism and the Indian middle class, British Imperialism and Gandhian resistance, British Imperialism and the proletariat21, etc.
According to Karl Kautsky, this struggle for independence should be seen as a ‘counter-pressure’, the expected outcome of the establishment of an industrial state’s domination over an agrarian state22, the phenomenon which Kautsky identifies as the starting point of imperialism. In Kautsky’s point of view, political sovereignty is the key to success in this race for domination, and the competition soon leads to a full-fledged war. Etherington points out the loopholes in Kautsky’s thesis, stating that the definition of hinterland is flawed in several aspects. However, if Kaustky’s thesis highlights political sovereignty as the extra edge in imperialism, then Brown’s observation on Britain’s increasing vulnerability and Rich’s statement’s on British government’s inability to control the Indian Territory can be construed as the decline of its imperialism.
John Darwin attributes the decline of British Imperialism to the devastating outcome of the
19ID Gaur, Essays in history and historiography: India’s struggle for freedom. (Anmol Publications: 1998), 66.
20Ibid., 66.
21Ibid., 66.
22Norman Etherington, Reconsidering Theories of Imperialism, History and Theory, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Feb., 1982), pp. 1-36 (Blackwell Publishing for Wesleyan University), 14.
Second World War23. Asserting that the War brought about the accelerated downfall of Britain’simperialistic ambitions, Darwin argues how the “catastrophic British defeats in Europe and Asia between 1940 and 1942 destroyed its financial and economic independence”, which he calls the “the real foundation of the imperial system”24. According to Darwin, the Indian independence in 1947 heralded the decline of British Imperial power. The Raj had channelled Indian resources into the War, and in the face of growing disapproval from the Indian National Congress, it had assured complete freedom “once the war was over”25. Popular antagonism against the Colonial government steadily began to rise in the post war period, and soon the Empire lost one of its wealthiest colonial territories, further weakening its economy.
Darwin’s argument ignores the various other factors that accelerated the process of decline over the years, while solely zeroing in on the Second World War. Darwin’s thesis on the Indian independence in 1947 as the onset of downfall of British imperialism contradicts Keith Jeffery’s opinion that the impact of the Second World War “did much to strengthen the Imperial system”26. Jeffery acknowledges the widespread developments taking place in India during the Second World War, but states that these were inevitable changes whose timing was facilitated by the war. Nevertheless, he discusses the British inability to ignore the Nehruvian indifference towards the colonial government’s declaration of war without consulting the national leaders and the growing demand for the Raj’s commitment to Indian independence, concluding that the price
23Dr.John Darwin, Britain, the Commonwealth and the End of Empire (BBC History).
24Dr.John Darwin, Britain, the Commonwealth and the End of Empire (BBC History).
25Ibid.
26Keith Jeffery, The Second World War, Chapter 13; Wm. Roger Louis. D.Litt., FBA (Ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume IV- The Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press: 1999), 306.
paid by the Empire, however, to defend itself during the second World War was its own self.
Karl De Schweinitz’s theory about the decline of British Imperialism in India is connected to an ideology of inequality. Schweinitz explains how this “changing inequality”, that constitutes Britain’s Imperial history in India was sustained by the latter’s inability, unwillingness or perhaps even a lack of interest in asserting a public interest against British Imperialism27. If we consider this perspective to analyse the decline of British Imperialism in India, then we would need to conclude that the fall of the Empire was brought about when India was finally able to mobilize public dissent against Britain’s imperialist designs. This hypothesis implicitly points at the role of a public opinion in the collapse of British Imperialism, thereby overlooking the socio-cultural and economic changes as well as the multidimensional nature of the national movement that contributed to the decline.
According to Schweinitz, it became increasingly difficult for the British administration to ignore Indian public opinion as was evident with the Nehruvian policy of distancing itself from the war efforts in a bid to bargain for sooner national liberation. Nevertheless, Nicholas Mansergh opined that despite this lack of co-operation, the country’s participation in the Second World War sought to prove “not so much the measure of autonomy India had so far acquired as the extent of her dependence”28. Although it can be said that India’s participation in the war was based on a stick-and-the carrot principle, it cannot be ignored that the Nehruvian line of abstinence from Britain’s war effort did not have a wider impact- clearly, public opinion was still divided along ideological and perhaps pragmatic lines.
27 Karl De Schweinitz, The rise and fall of British India: imperialism as inequality (Methuen: 1983), 239-240.
28 Nicholas Mansergh, The Commonwealth Experience (New York, 1969), p. 295.
Robin J. Moore notes that there has been a rise in the amount of research on the role of the Second World War in accelerating the erosion of the British imperial power in India. Moore offers three aspects of this phase of transformation between independence and the end of the Second World War, arguing that the economic, military and administrative conditions underwent remarkable changes and “affected British-Indian bilateral relations”29. Moore explains this by referring to the massive strengthening and ‘Indianization’ of the Indian colonial army, about whose loyalty there were widespread apprehensions owing to the mounting pressure for freedom30. The number of enlisted soldiers reached a whopping two million during the Second World War.
According to Martin Wainwright, the ‘expansion of India’s capabilities’ is closely connected to the downfall of British imperialism31. The war gave an unexpected boost to Indian industries, thereby triggering an unprecedented development in the country. Wainwright highlights the production of arms and ammunition and capital investment32. Moore refers to B.R. Tomlinson’s observation that the war resulted in a huge inflow of sterling to India, and discusses Partha Sarathi Gupta’s argument on how the impact of a rising tide of popular protests on INA trials has been scarcely documented. All these theses underline the importance of war in bringing about the decline of the Empire. Moore argues that Britain’s awareness about the disastrous consequences of an inglorious exit from India worked behind its need to stage a peaceful
29Robin J. Moore, India in the 1940s; Wm. Roger Louis. D.Litt., FBA (Ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume V- Historiography (New York: Oxford University Press: 1999), 235.
30Ibid., 235.
31Ibid., 235-236.
32Ibid., 235.
withdrawal and help install a government in its place. But, the question here would be whether an added emphasis on war as the reason behind this decline overshadows the various sequences of events that have unfolded over time.
J. G. Darwin seeks attention to philosophy behind the policies that London pursued”33 as he tries to locate the causes behind the fall of British imperialism in India. If seen from this point of view, the notion of a peaceful exit being the camouflage for the political panic is mirrored in the Cabinet minutes which went on to conclude that “withdrawal from India need not appear to be forced upon us by our weakness nor to be the first step in the dissolution of the Empire”34. Roger Louis argues that the British intention to envisage a continued allegiance to the cause of imperialism from the newly independent nation did not materialize. So, did India’s independence in 1947 indeed mark the end of British Imperialism?
The answer to that question lies in Ranjit Sau’s classification of the four phases of imperialism. Sau traces the first phase back to the sixteenth century and states that the phase was characterised by “colonial plunder with brute force”35. A major part of nineteenth century constitutes the second phase, which is marked by the expansion of markets in the colonies and the search for raw materials. The third phase is covered by the last three and the first three decades of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, respectively. Sau says this phase corresponds to Lenin’s idea
33J.G.Darwin, The Fear of Falling: British Politics and Imperial Decline since 1900; Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fifth Series, Vol. 36 (1986), pp. 27-43; 28.
34WM Roger Louis, The Dissolution of the British Empire, chapter 14; Wm. Roger Louis. D.Litt., FBA (Ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume IV- The Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press: 1999), 329.
35Ranjit Sau, The Theory of Unequal Exchange, Trade and Imperialism; Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 11, No. 10 (Mar. 6, 1976), pp. 399+401-404; 399.
of the high-point of capitalism which replaces the export of capital with finished goods from imperialist countries. According to Sau, the final phase began in the 1930 and was marked by what he calls an “unequal exchange in international trade” which surpasses profits, royalty and dividends36. If the drain of resources and unequal exchange are the hallmark of final phase of capitalism, then the decline of British imperialism in India can be said to have occurred with the declaration of independence in 1947 when Britain relinquished its control over the peninsula.
Was imperialism the cause of its own demise in British India? If World War is indeed looked upon as the final nail in the coffin of British imperialism in India, then in the light of arguments put forth by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky and Norman Etherington- about imperialistic race for the division of the world leading to war- one can conclude that imperialism brought about its own end. In this case, the wave of socio-political and economic changes that had been taking shape in India would assume secondary significance as these would then be mere by-products (in Etherington’s thesis, struggle for national liberation is an outcome of imperialism abroad) of an on-going process of imperialism.
Darwin offers a perspective that takes into consideration a number of developments taking place between 1900 and 1914 heralded the impending decline of British imperialism in India37. In the years following the First World War, the British government encountered numerous changes that seemed to prophesy the downfall of its imperial power: in India, it failed to check the wave of national movement under the leadership of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi who would not settle for anything less than complete independence.
36Ibid., 399.
37J.G.Darwin, The Fear of Falling: British Politics and Imperial Decline since 1900; Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fifth Series, Vol. 36 (1986), pp. 27-43.
John Darwin states that Britain’s decision to oversee the evolution of a national government in India and stage a relatively uneventful withdrawal hints at the waning imperial power of the country. Darwin calls this policy a ‘grudging acceptance’ of imperialist downfall, followed by the realization that the situation could be salvaged only by “fabian tactics and in a spirit of almost Metternichian futility”38. Darwin says the fault lay with the initial brash confidence of British legislators who refused to see the fermenting antagonism in India. While using an iron fist to deal with political dissent in the colony led by Indian National Congress, Britain’s definition of trouble was a possible invasion of India by its imperialist rivals. The colonial government introduced legislations like the India Act of 1935 with a view to cripple a pan-India movement by inducing what they called “provincial jealousies”39.
From Britain’s perspective, the new legislations promising Indians participation in administrative affairs were meant to be safety valves that would prevent pressure from building up within the nation. What the policy makers did not see was the strengthening of a national movement that finally rose in magnitude to demand total separation from British control. In this case, what brought about the collapse of British imperialism in India was the inability of the law makers to see beyond their short term objectives in the country. The situation, according to Darwin, was exacerbated when the Second World War began. The contingencies of war inadvertently led to large scale developments and mobilization in India, thus strengthening the demand for freedom. The British sentiments were aptly reflected in a letter dated March 1940, written by Lord Linlithgow to Baldwin: the chief point expressed was that the Second World War, provoked by
39John Darwin, Imperialism in Decline? Tendencies in British Imperial Policy between the Wars; The Historical Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Sep., 1980), pp. 657-679.
Hitler had ‘offset’ the British interests in Indian political scenario40.
B.R.Tomlinson seeks to analyse the end of British imperialism on Indian soil from an economic angle. Contrary to Darwin’s theory on the inability of policymakers to understand the long term repercussions of colonial legislations in the twentieth century, Tomlinson argues that the national movement was encouraged by British government’s failure to implement effective economic policies during the war and the post war period41. There was a tide of campaigns against British economic policies in the twentieth century, led by economic nationalists who branded them as exploitative and anti-Indian. Swadeshi movement and Drain of Wealth theory were used to mobilize popular sentiments against the imperial government. By 1947, the imperial powers on Indian Territory had been remarkably weakened and the British government was left with no choice other than staging a peaceful exit from the colonial region, hoping to “secure a bargain with successor governments which had the political roots necessary to run the interventionist economic system now required”42.
The decline of British imperialism in India is not an overnight phenomenon that occurred due to a single cause. It will not be possible to provide a linear explanation to the episode, as the downfall involved political, economic, social and intellectual elements that contributed in one way or another, in India and abroad. A particular theory cannot explain the causes and characteristics of the decline of British imperialism, as the various subtexts ensconced by the event do not conform to any specific straitjackets. On the other hand, the fall of imperialism had
40Linlithgow to Baldwin, 22 Mar. 1940, Baldwin papers, box 107.
41B.R. Tomlinson, The Political Economy of the Raj: The Decline of Colonialism; The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 42, No. 1, The Tasks of Economic History (Mar., 1982), pp. 133-137
42Ibid., 137.
far-reaching consequences for British population in Great Britain. Hence, it can be concluded that each of these above given explanations defines the collapse, while complementing or contradicting each other.
Bibliography:
Brown, Judith M. India; Wm. Roger Louis. D.Litt., FBA (Ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume IV- The Twentieth Century (New York: Oxford University Press: 1999).
Darwin, Dr.John. Britain, the Commonwealth and the End of Empire. BBC History< http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/endofempire_overview_01.shtml> 26 February 2011.
Darwin, J.G. The Fear of Falling: British Politics and Imperial Decline since 1900; Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fifth Series, Vol. 36: 1986.
Etherington, Norman. Reconsidering Theories of Imperialism, History and Theory, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Feb., 1982), pp. 1-36. Blackwell Publishing for Wesleyan University.
Gaur, I.D. Essays in history and historiography: India’s struggle for freedom. Anmol Publications: 1998.
Jeffery, Keith. The Second World War, Chapter 13; Wm. Roger Louis. D.Litt., FBA (Ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume IV- The Twentieth Century. New York: Oxford University Press: 1999.
Letter from Lord Linlithgow to Stanley Baldwin, 22 Mar. 1940, Baldwin papers.
Louis, WM Roger. The Dissolution of the British Empire, chapter 14; Wm. Roger Louis. D.Litt., FBA (Ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume IV- The Twentieth Century. New York: Oxford University Press: 1999.
Mansergh, Nicholas. The Commonwealth Experience .New York, 1969.
Moore, Robin J. India in the 1940s; Wm. Roger Louis. D.Litt., FBA (Ed.) The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume V- Historiography New York: Oxford University Press: 1999.
Sau, Ranjit. The Theory of Unequal Exchange, Trade and Imperialism; Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 11, No. 10: Mar. 6, 1976.
Schweinitz, Karl De. The rise and fall of British India: imperialism as inequality. Methuen: 1983.
Tomlinson, B.R. The Political Economy of the Raj: The Decline of Colonialism; The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 42, No. 1, The Tasks of Economic History: Mar., 1982.
Webster, Wendy: Englishness and Empire 1939-1965. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005.