access to history

Britain and India

1845–1947
Tim Leadbeater

PART OF HACHETTE LIVRE UK

Study guides written by Angela Leonard (Edexcel).

The publishers would like to thank the following individuals, institutions and
companies for permission to reproduce copyright illustrations in this book:
AKG-Images/Ullstein Bild, page 96 (bottom); © Austrian Archives/Corbis, page 63;
© Bettmann/Corbis, pages 70, 87, 145; Henri Cartier-Bresson/Magnum Photos,
page 128; © CORBIS, page 77; © Dinodia Images, pages 38, 110; Getty Images,
pages 78, 83, 98, 111, 132; © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/Corbis, pages 32, 127;
By permission of Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru/National Library of Wales/Solo
Syndication, pages 105, 119, 144; David Low, The Daily News and The Star,
16th December 1919/British Cartoon Archive, University of Kent/Solo Syndication,
page 53; Paul Popper/Popperfoto/Getty Images, page 104; Private Collection, Archives
Charmet/The Bridgeman Art Library, page 39; Private Collection, Ken Welsh/
The Bridgeman Art Library, pages 11, 13; Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images,
pages 28, 84, 106.
The publishers would like to acknowledge use of the following extracts:
Basic Books for an extract from Empire: The British Imperial Experience from 1765 to the
Present by Denis Judd, 1996; Basic Books for an extract from Empire: The Rise and
Demise of the British World Order by Niall Ferguson, 2003; Cambridge University Press
for an extract from The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire by P.J. Marshall,
1996; Little Brown & Co. for an extract from The Rise and Fall of the British Empire by
Lawrence James, 1994; Oxford University Press, USA for an extract from Modern India:
The Origins of an Asian Democracy by Judith M. Brown, 1994; Penguin Books, India for
extracts from India’s Struggle for Independence by Bipan Chandra, 1988; Trafalgar
Square Publishing for an extract from Liberty or Death: India’s Journey to Independence
and Division by Patrick French, 1997; Vikas Publishing House for extracts from Towards
India’s Freedom and Partition by S.R. Mehrotra, 1978.
Every effort has been made to trace and acknowledge ownership of copyright. The
publishers will be glad to make suitable arrangements with any copyright holders
whom it has not been possible to contact.

Hachette Livre UK’s policy is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable
products and made from wood grown in sustainable forests. The logging and
manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of
the country of origin.

Orders: please contact Bookpoint Ltd, 130 Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4SB.
Telephone: (44) 01235 827720. Fax: (44) 01235 400454. Lines are open 9.00–5.00,
Monday to Saturday, with a 24-hour message answering service. Visit our website at
www.hoddereducation.co.uk

© Tim Leadbeater 2008

First published in 2008 by
Hodder Education,
Part of Hachette Livre UK
338 Euston Road
London NW1 3BH

Impression number 5 4 3 2 1
Year 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008

All rights reserved. Apart from any use permitted under UK copyright law, no
part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or held
within any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publisher or under licence from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited.
Further details of such licences (for reprographic reproduction) may be obtained
from the Copyright Licensing Agency Limited, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street,
London EC1N 8TS.

Cover photo shows a cartoon by Johnson in Kladderadatsch, 13 August 1933, ‘Seated on

the Indian elephant, whose tusks are blunted by the policy of non-violence, Gandhi
defies the violence of the British Lion’, courtesy of Mary Evans Picture Library
Typeset in Baskerville 10/12pt and produced by Gray Publishing, Tunbridge Wells
Printed in Malta

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978 0340 965 979

Some figures in the printed version of this book are not available for inclusion in the eBook for copyright reasons.
Contents

Dedication v
Chapter 1 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 1
1 Introduction to the Land and People 2
2 The Indian Mutiny 1857 10
3 Raj and Renaissance 14
4 Imperialism and Nationalism 20
Study Guide 28

Chapter 2 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 30

1 Reorganisation 31
2 Reconciliation in Conflict 42
3 The Amritsar Massacre 49
4 The Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms 54
Study Guide 57

Chapter 3 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 60

1 Gandhi and Non-cooperation 61
2 Lord Simon and the Salt March 67
3 Talks 74
4 Elections and Relations Between Congress and the Muslims 80
Study Guide 89

Chapter 4 Quit India 1939–45 91

1 Patriotisms 92
2 Quit India Campaign 99
3 Viceroy Wavell 105
Study Guide 112

Chapter 5 Independence and Partition 1945–7 115

1 Options 116
2 Setbacks 123
3 Full Speed Ahead 126
4 Decisions 133
5 Aftermath 143
6 The Final Constitution(s) 150
Study Guide 151
iv | Contents

Chapter 6 Surveying the Transfer of Power 153

1 Character 153
2 Gandhi and Churchill 154
3 Jinnah and Pakistan 154
4 Partition 155
5 Looking to the future 155

Viceroys of British India 156

Glossary 157
Index 160
Dedication

Keith Randell (1943–2002)

The Access to History series was conceived and developed by Keith, who created a series to
‘cater for students as they are, not as we might wish them to be’. He leaves a living
legacy of a series that for over 20 years has provided a trusted, stimulating and well-
loved accompaniment to post-16 study. Our aim with these new editions is to continue to
offer students the best possible support for their studies.

Note
Historical anglicised names of cities and locations have been used in this book unless a
specific modern reference is made. For example, Bombay is used rather than Mumbai
but a modern international airport is at Kolkatta rather than Calcutta, the historical
capital of British India.
This page intentionally left blank
1 The Subcontinent
1800–1900

POINTS TO CONSIDER
At the stroke of midnight between 14 and 15 August 1947,
the nations of India and Pakistan came into existence. They
gained or were granted, depending on the point of view,
their independence from the British Empire. Three hundred
million subjects of the King-Emperor George VI became
citizens of modern democracies. The population of the
Empire instantly shrank to one-fifth of its size. It was the
largest peacetime transfer of power in history.
However, since then the two countries have gone to war
with each other several times, usually over the disputed
province of Kashmir, an unresolved problem of
independence and partition. Both nations now possess
nuclear weapons and the United Nations has identified the
Kashmir conflict as the one most likely to escalate to
nuclear war in the world today. In this context, the study of
Indo-Pakistani independence could hardly be more
important.
This chapter sets out the context of the nationalist
movements for independence. The nineteenth-century
period covers the most troubled and then the most
confident time for the British Raj (rule). The British would
not seize more territory after 1850 and treaties were
negotiated with the Indian rulers of hundreds of
independent states. In 1857–8, a mutiny or rebellion broke
out which traumatised the British in India and Britain itself.
In consequence, radical changes were made to the
government of India. The system which was created would
essentially stay the same until a few years before
independence.
This chapter examines in more detail:
• The land and the people
• The Indian Mutiny
• The Raj and renaissance
• Imperialism and nationalism
2 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Key dates
1600 Charter granted to East India Company by
Elizabeth I
1857 Indian Mutiny began
1858 Crown control of India
Royal Proclamation
1875 Foundation of Aligarh College
1877 Queen Victoria declared Empress, British
territorial control in India at its greatest
1883 Ilbert Bill
1885 Formation of Congress Party
1892 Indian Councils Act
1919 Amritsar Massacre

1 | Introduction to the Land and People

The nationalist independence movement and the reactions of the
British form a political and constitutional history. It is, however,
important to understand something of the geographical, social,
cultural and economic factors which underlie and shape this
history. Partition took place as a result of religious pressures and

Key terms
along religious demographic lines and a basic understanding of Demographic
this is crucial to what follows. Relating to
population.
Geography
Punjab
The subcontinent, sometimes referred to as South Asia, covers a
Meaning five rivers.
landmass equivalent to Europe (excluding Russia) or about half
the USA.
Three distinct geographical areas are customarily identified. By
far the most significant is known as the Indo-Gangetic plain. This
is an arc of extremely fertile, and swelteringly hot, territory
running up the huge valley of the river Indus, now in Pakistan,
across the area of the Punjab and down the equally huge valley of
the river Ganges. The Ganges meets the river Brahmaputra
flowing round from the north side of the Himalayas to form the
largest delta system in the world in the area of Bengal, now
Bangladesh. This region has been settled and farmed since
prehistory and has been the territorial base of almost all the
rulers of India. Both of the historical capitals of India, Delhi and
Calcutta (modern Kolkatta) lie within that arc.
To the north lie the Himalayas, the highest mountain range in
the world and still rising as a result of the collision of tectonic
plates. The political effect of this barrier, combined with the
peninsular form of the subcontinent, has been that foreign
invasions have come overwhelmingly from the Islamic north-west,
the north-eastern approaches being even more difficult as a result
of mountains, Burmese jungle and the Bengal delta swamp.
To the south of the plains, coastal strips provide opportunities
for ports, cities and trade. Behind them rise the hills of the
Western and Eastern Ghats creating inland the Deccan plateau.
 Areas over 10 per cent Muslim
Areas over 50 per cent Muslim
Kabul US H CHINA National boundaries

KA
UK

R
D
HIN

AK
PERSIA AFGHANISTAN Railways

O
Peshawar

R
AM
Lahore
HIM
INDO-GANG AL [TIBET] Lhasa
ET AY
IC A
PL
us
Ind
AI
N
R. Delhi NEP
AL BHUTAN tra
apu
Agra ra hm
Lucknow R. Gange R.B
s
Karachi Cawnpore
Allahabad

Calcutta
FRENCH
BURMA
INDOCHINA

DECCAN PLATEAU
Bombay Pune

S
Hyderabad

AT
Bay of SIAM

GH
Bengal
Arabian
N

The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 3

ER
WE

Sea
ST
ST

EA
ER

N Goa
NG
HA

Madras
TS

Pondicherry
Cochin

0 400 800
CEYLON
km

Indian Ocean

Indian subcontinent, showing geographical physical features, and proportions of Muslim people.
4 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Ironically, this area has political significance because it is less

fertile and populous. Invaders and rulers found it difficult or
impossible to control. Civilisation and power flourished early and
enduringly in the Indo-Gangetic plains but was necessarily more
cosmopolitan and multicultural. The south, by contrast, was
resistance territory and, in that sense, the Indian heartland.

Ethnic, religious and linguistic groups

Variation in the Indian population corresponds broadly to this
geopolitical sketch but it must be recognised that there is a vast
range of ethnic, religious and linguistic difference even for such a
large area.
Hinduism is the core religion of India but in certain areas
Islam, Sikhism and Buddhism are more prevalent. These will be
treated under historical developments further below.
The peoples of the south speak languages of the Dravidian
family, and Buddhism is a major religion. They are generally
darker-skinned (and there remains some skin-colour prejudice
against them within India). Some ethnic groups, notably the
Tamils, are fighting for further independence. There is also still
widespread resistance to the use of Hindi as a national language.
The peoples of the north speak languages of the Indo-
European family which also embraces English, Scandinavian and
Mediterranean languages. These peoples are lighter-skinned as a
result of waves of central Asian (Aryan) incomers. Islam is a major
religion and predominant in certain places.
In the Himalayan provinces, west and east, the ethnic groups
and their languages are more Tibetan and a variant of Buddhism
is again common.

Language and power

Controlling, let alone uniting, such a diverse area has been a stiff
challenge throughout history. In a country of some 200
languages, divisions and policies are fundamental. The Mughals
(see below) made Persian the official language and British traders
and administrators used it. This was replaced by English under
British rule. At independence, Hindi became the national
language of India; in Pakistan, the official language is Urdu,
which is spoken like Hindi but written in a Perso-Arabic script.
Bangladeshi is different again.
Language issues remain complex, personally and politically.
Children in the Himalayan region of Ladakh, part of the Indian
province of Jammu-Kashmir, use Ladakhi at primary school, must
learn Urdu for all their lessons at secondary school and then
master English if they wish to study in higher education. The first
constitutional reform of the Indian government after
independence was to reshape provincial boundaries to match
more closely with linguistic groups.
Religious sensitivities and tensions run through the entire
history of British rule and the nationalist campaigns. Hinduism
will be considered first as the core culture of India. Islam and
Sikhism will be considered in their historical context.
 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 5

Hindu society
The Hindu religion, the basis of subcontinental society, is one of
the oldest in the world. Perhaps because of this, and the
importance given to status by birth, Indian society and culture
has been described, too loosely, as ‘timeless’ and ‘unchanging’.
This is, however, inaccurate and in the analysis which follows, it
should be borne in mind that social divisions have always been
flexible in reality. On the other hand, this has resulted, arguably,
in an even more complex sensitivity to social status, especially as
Hinduism has no central authority structure and is managed
largely through convention and consensus.
Key terms

Polytheistic Hinduism is polytheistic and highly tolerant (although there

A religion with are contemporary violent, fundamentalist groups). There are
many gods and literally numberless gods and goddesses, with continual new
goddesses. additions. Partly because of so much choice and diversity,
relationship with a god/dess is less important than public
Caste
behaviour, termed dharma. Dharma consists of undertaking
A rigid public social
religious duties and social responsibilities appropriate to one’s
division. Derived
religious group. Such groups are called castes.
from a Portuguese
word.
Caste
Caste membership, which is largely defined by birth, determines
which occupations may be followed, whom one may marry and
even the extent to which one may appear in public.
Classically, there are four castes (termed varna): Brahmins, the
priests; Kshatriyas, the warriors; Vaishyas, the traders; and
Shudras, the cultivators or peasants. Such a schema is not unlike
European medieval feudalism but with an explicitly religious basis
and function. The respect accorded these groups remains fairly
fixed, although actual power might vary from place to place.
There are also finer-grained distinctions known as jatis, in which
social groups fill niches in the labour and occupational structure
and whose prestige might rise or fall more quickly. One
calculation is that there were over 2000 castes in total.
The persistence of caste into the modern world and its social
importance has some bearing on the history of Indian
nationalism. In the first place, the Brahmin class, with its
sensitivity to respect without power, was a focus for discontent (see
Section 2, ‘The Indian Mutiny’, on page 10) and later for
educated resistance and organisation. At the other end of the
hierarchy, the oppression of the lowest group, known literally as
the Untouchables, became, for Gandhi the nationalist
campaigner, part of the need for constitutional reform. Finally,
conversion to Islam presented in many ways an attractive escape
from the fixities of Hinduism and created areas of Muslim
preponderance.
Two other features should be noted: first, most of the regional
rulers of India have been Hindus – the Rajahs, Nizams and
Nawabs collectively termed the Princes in the British period; and
second, the cow is a sacred animal to Hindus, perhaps the most
sacred thing of all, and as such vulnerable to offence, leading to
outrage and violent reaction.
6 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Mughals, Marathas and Sikhs

Mughals
From the eleventh century, north-western India was raided and
invaded by armies, groups and peoples from central Asia,
ethnically Turkic. They established a Sultanate at Delhi and
consolidated their power. With the accession of Akbar (meaning
‘The Great’) in 1556, there came to power a dynasty claiming
descent from Genghis Khan and Timurlane, near legendary
leaders of the Mongol hordes. From this, the dynasty became
known as the Mughals (from which comes the English word
mogul).
The Mughal civilisation is one of the most brilliant in history.
Its cultural achievements are numerous but the Taj Mahal is
perhaps the most famous. Politically, the legacy of the Mughal
period is of vital importance to the history of independence.
Although Arab Muslims had reached India overland in the
seventh century and traded along the coasts, it was the Mughals
who established Islam firmly within the subcontinent. They ruled
as never more than a minority élite but the prestige attached to
Islam ensured that, over time, Muslim culture and individuals
were pre-eminent. In the north-west, Muslims were the majority
of the general population.

Islam and caste

In the region of Bengal, many people converted to Islam to
escape their low status in Hindu caste society. In Islam, as in
Hinduism, socio-religious consensus and public behaviour are
important. However, Islam places great emphasis on the equality
of believers and their direct relationship with one all-powerful
god, Allah. This rather more democratic spirit was clearly
appealing. As a result, the Bengal area also became one of the
majority Muslim regions.
The Mughals held sway over the whole of northern India but
were never able to completely dominate the south. The repeated
attempts to wage war, requiring constant taxation, eventually wore
out the will of both rulers and ruled. From the time of Aurangzeb
(d.1707), Mughal power began to decline and territorial control
to shrink, although there was still a Mughal Emperor in Delhi in
1858.
Into this situation moved various groups: the Marathas, the
Sikhs and the Europeans.

Marathas
The Marathas expanded out of their heartland in the Western
Ghats under occasionally brilliant leadership, notably that of
Shivaji, in the seventeenth century. Although they eventually
brought under their control, directly or indirectly, a huge part of
central India, they were unable to unify their various sub-groups
into anything more than a loose confederacy of warlords. The
relative poverty of their heartland meant that they could not
sustain large armies, although when needed huge forces could be
 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 7

put together for set-piece battles. At their height they threatened

the European, particularly British, presence right across to
Bengal but the challenge provoked a sustained and victorious
reaction. The territorial legacy of the Marathas was the major
princely state of Hyderabad. The political legacy was a glimpse of
all-India rule by Indians. The Marathas are sometimes claimed as
Key term

Proto-nationalist a proto-nationalist movement.

A first example or
experiment, before Sikhs
adoption of the In the sixteenth century, encouraged to a certain extent by
aims of nationalism. tolerant and multicultural Mughal emperors, religious leaders in
the Punjab created a deliberate fusion of Hinduism and Islam,
which became known as Sikhism. Amritsar was declared the Sikh
holy city after the building of the Golden Temple there. At first,
Sikhism was purely a socio-religious innovation. Later Sikh
leaders developed a distinctive identity with a militant attitude
and military discipline. Over time, the Punjab, one of the most
populous regions of the subcontinent, became overwhelmingly
Sikh and Muslim with almost no Hindus. For this reason, as we
shall see, it was in the Punjab that the most terrible events of
partition took place.

The East India Company

Regular English contact with India began in the early 1600s as a
Key date

Charter granted to result of Elizabeth I granting a charter to the East India

East India Company Company giving it monopoly trading control of the lucrative
by Elizabeth I: 1600 spice trade from the Pacific islands of the East Indies, now
Indonesia. India itself became an important point to restock food
and water on the trading journeys.
The company established bases, literally fortified factories, at
three Indian ports, Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, over the same
period as the Dutch, French and Portuguese were doing the same.
Eventually, the Dutch, at this time a global maritime power,
succeeded in ousting other European groups from the islands of
the East Indies. So the East India Company (now ‘British’ as a
result of the 1707 Act of Union) was forced to concentrate on
expanding its Indian business.
As Mughal power declined and the Marathas sought to exploit
opportunities for conquest, the company found itself engaging in
defensive warfare to protect its interests. The company created
and put into the field its own substantial private army. During the
eighteenth century, European wars between Britain and France
became global through combat in India and the American
colonies. It was in this period that Robert Clive (Clive of India),
an unpromising trader as a youth, emerged as a military genius,
defeating the equally brilliant French General Dupleix, to become
millionaire governor of Bengal.

Corruption and expansion

In the late eighteenth century, service in the East India Company,
although ‘far from civilisation’, was known as a route to personal
 8 | Britain and India 1845–1947
British East India Company 1792
British India 1856
Kabul Presidencies and boundaries
PERSIA
AFGHANISTAN Peshawar CHINA

Lahore
BHUTAN
NEP
Delhi AL

BENGAL
B
O
M
B
MARATHAS Calcutta
A
BURMA
Y FRENCH
INDOCHINA

Bombay
HYDERABAD
Bay of SIAM
Bengal

S
Arabian
Sea A
R
Goa
D
A

N
M

Madras

0 400 800
CEYLON
km

Indian Ocean

British (East India Company) expansion to 1856.

 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 9

riches, partly because the company also encouraged private trade

and partly because its success over the Marathas and the French
meant that it found itself governing ever more area, collecting
taxes and running public administration. The company became a
by-word for corruption, culminating in the impeachment, that is
trial in the House of Commons itself, of Warren Hastings, the
governor-general.
Aggressive expansion resulted in the British control of the
entire Gangetic plain as far as the Sutlej river by 1818.
Nevertheless, the company professed to have no political
objectives. It was simply trying to protect trade and capture
(literally) more market.
The administration of the company was divided into three
presidencies, based at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. In 1833,
the post of governor-general of Fort William, Calcutta, became
the concurrent governor-general of India.
One ironic footnote to this period is that the French, Dutch and
Portuguese all retained ownership of various port-cities, such as
Pondicherry, Cochin and Goa, not just through the period of
British rule but beyond independence. They were only finally
handed back to India in the 1950s.

Intervention
From 1820 the British saw themselves clearly as the dominant
power in India for the foreseeable future. However, military
success, territorial acquisition and administrative competence led
only to larger questions, perhaps partly born of self-confidence,
partly something more like conscience: what was the point of
controlling India, what to do with it, where was it going?
Increasingly, their attitude displayed a paternalistic concern to
spread the benefits of British civilisation and Christian culture.
Key term

White Man’s This attitude was to become known, at the height of empire, as
Burden the White Man’s Burden – difficult and unrewarding work but
The perceived duty someone’s got to do it.
to govern so-called An early example was the criminalisation and consequent
inferior races and suppression of sati (or suttee). Sati was the Hindu custom,
countries. following the death of any notable Hindu male, which required
his widow to throw herself voluntarily upon the funeral pyre to be
burned alive. It was commonly known that, in the event of natural
reluctance, families would pressurise grief-stricken widows to
comply and, failing that, take matters into their own hands. The
British (that is the company) outlawed sati in 1829. Although
there is evidence to suggest that the suppression of this custom
was privately welcomed, it nevertheless marked a public
precedent of interference in Hindu socio-religious affairs.
Less controversial was the suppression of thuggee (from which
the English word ‘thug’ derives). Hindu devotees of the goddess
Kali believed that their cult demanded human sacrifice and
procured this through the strangulation of random victims.
Suppression took rather longer to achieve than with sati but was
largely complete by 1837.
10 | Britain and India 1845–1947

A further manifestation was the minute on education prepared in

Key terms
Minute
1835 by Thomas Babington Macaulay, member of the governor- An official
general’s supreme council of India, which declared the intention document.
of establishing and developing an education system throughout
India. Annexation
Technological benefits of European civilisation, such as railways Forced but peaceful
and telegraph communication, were introduced in the name of conquest of
progress but without realising the anxieties and resentments they territory.
might be stoking up.
Finally, under the governor-generalship of Lord Dalhousie
(1848–56), a controversial policy of annexation was implemented.
If the ruler of a (Hindu) state or province died without a son to
inherit power, then the province was simply declared part of
British territory. This legal device resulted in the addition of huge
areas to British possessions.

Summary diagram: The land and people of India

Nineteenth century
Sixteenth century
British
Mughals
Expansion of East India
Invasion from Central Asia
Company from Bengal

India

Seventeenth century Eighteenth century

Marathas Europeans
Expansion from Establishment of ports
Western Ghats and colonies

2 | The Indian Mutiny 1857

Key date

Matters came to a head in 1857. What came to be known as the Indian Mutiny: 1857
Indian Mutiny left a deep psychological scar. What happened was
terrible; the thought of what might have happened – and might
still happen – lurked in the collective British memory for the rest
of British rule right up to the Second World War.

Causes Key question

The key causes of the mutiny were a mixture of political grievance Why did the mutiny
and religious fears. happen?
Politically, the policy of annexing princely states without
immediate heirs into British control had created widespread
 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 11

resentment and anxieties, not least because it threw out of

employment large numbers of advisers to the princes.
This was combined with religious anxieties which had been
completely overlooked. The prestigious Brahmin caste viewed the
new railways with horror. They feared religious pollution by
coming into contact, literally, with Untouchables in railway
carriages and stations.
Key term

Sepoy Moreover, Brahmins formed a large proportion of sepoys in

An Indian soldier. the army and recent declarations had made it clear that army
regiments might be deployed outside their home region and even
overseas. To the Brahmin caste, a sea voyage results in a huge loss
of caste respect.
It only needed one final spark to ignite rebellion. Sepoys were
outraged by rumours that newly issued cartridges for their rifles
had been greased for easier loading (which also involved tearing
off part of the cartridge with the mouth) with either beef fat,
sacred to Hindus, or pork fat, prohibited by Islam. As one writer
has put it ‘with amazing insensitivity both were true’.

Key events
The key events were:
• The British court-martialled and humiliated 85 sepoys at the
barracks in Meerut, near Delhi, for refusing to use the
cartridges. They were freed by mutineers the same night who

A contemporary engraving of Miss Ulrica Wheeler (aged 18 years) defending herself during the
Indian Mutiny published in a popular book. What feelings might this arouse in British readers?
Miss Wheeler was popularly thought to have been killed or killed herself. There is strong evidence
that she lived a full but disguised life as the Muslim wife of one of her attackers or rescuers.
12 | Britain and India 1845–1947

then massacred all local Europeans, including women and

children.
• The rapid spread of mutiny throughout the Bengal Army of
northern India, although the other two armies – of Bombay
and Madras – remained calm and loyal, as did the Sikhs of the
Punjab and the princely states. The entire Gangetic plain was
soon out of British control.
• The mutineers marched to Delhi to proclaim the 82-year-old
Mughal Emperor ruler of all India. This led to peasant
uprisings. Local leaders emerged at the head of anti-British
forces. Notable examples were the Nana Sahib of Oudh and
the (female) Rani of Jhansi who dressed as a Maratha princess-
rebel, died in battle and was described by one contemporary
Briton as ‘the only man among the rebels’.
• At Cawnpore in the particularly volatile province of Oudh, 400
British men, women and children surrendered to mutineers
and were offered safe passage on boats. On their way to the
boats they were massacred; 200 others were saved, possibly as
future hostages against the advancing British troops, but were
then killed by butchers since the mutineers refused to carry out
the killings in cold blood.
• At Lucknow, some 3000 troops and civilian families endured a
five-month siege by mutineers. They feared the worst, as did
the British public reading regular dispatches in the newspapers
(see picture), but were eventually rescued by the largest British,
that is non-sepoy, army put together on the subcontinent. If
Cawnpore represented Britain at its most vulnerable, Lucknow
was seen as a sign of ultimate indomitability.

Consequences Key question

The immediate military consequences were that: What were the effects
of the mutiny?
• British reprisals were vicious and deliberately designed to strike
terror into the peasant population. Entire villages suspected of
support for mutineers were massacred by the British. At
Cawnpore itself, mutineers and others were forced to try to lick
clean the blood-stained buildings, before being made to eat
pork or beef and then publicly hanged. Elsewhere, mutineers
were loaded into cannons and literally blown to bits.
• The proportion of Indian sepoys in the army was reduced by
40 per cent and British troops increased by 50 per cent so that
the ratio became 3:1 rather than 9:1.
• Recruitment of sepoys switched from prestigious Hindu
Brahmin and Rajput castes to the more loyal areas of the Sikh
Punjab and the Muslim north-west. It was ensured that
adjacent regiments had different ethnic and religious
backgrounds.
• Troops were allowed to use whatever grease they preferred and
in 1867 the breech-loading rifle made this type of cartridge
obsolete.
 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 13

A contemporary engraving of mutineers being blown to pieces by cannons. What might be the
relationship between the chosen punishment, visual representation and popular feeling?

• In 1869, the opening of the Suez Canal and in 1870 the

completion of a telegraph system overland to Britain made
reinforcement a quicker prospect if needed.

Key debate: mutiny or rebellion?

The British attempted, largely successfully at the time, to
represent the events as either a disaster in which they were merely
victims or, at worst, a military phenomenon. By emphasising the
term ‘Indian Mutiny’ they tried to calm fears by focusing the
problem so that solutions could be identified. In the short term,
Key terms

Scapegoat certain military individuals became scapegoats on the grounds of

A person chosen to indecisiveness. This myth of delayed response was, however, to
carry the blame for have even more devastating consequences in the Amritsar
others. Massacre of 1919.
It is clear, however, that it was more than a mutiny and to some
Insurgency
extent this was recognised at the time. It was not expressed
A prolonged
openly so that the significant cultural, political and constitutional
uprising.
consequences which followed could be presented as high-minded
gifts rather than fearful rewards. They heralded a new era for the
Key dates

Crown control of British in India and for Indian nationalism.

India: 1858 From this perspective, events are more accurately described
Amritsar Massacre: today as, for example, the Great Rebellion. Some nationalist and
1919 Muslim historians even have claimed it was a national insurgency
or (failed) war of independence.
14 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Summary diagram: The Indian Mutiny 1857

Causes Effects
• Fear of Christian missionary activity • Abolition of East India Company
• Interventions in socio-religious customs • Parliament control
• Fear of caste pollution through travel • Royal proclamation of protection of
and transport religious freedom
• Annexation of territories, loss of jobs • Reward princes and landowners
• Offence at pork- and beef-greased cartridges • Develop education system and open jobs
to Indians
• Develop transport and communications,
reduce proportion of sepoys in army,
avoid high-caste recruitment

3 | Raj and Renaissance

A new beginning: crown control Key question
In the aftermath of the rebellion the British were determined to Why and how did the
bring the administration of India under closer government British re-order their
control. First, the East India Company was abolished. That was a government of India?
relatively simple matter of putting the British house in order.
Second, the Mughal Empire was brought to an end. The aged
Emperor was given a pension and sent into exile in Burma, with
little regret on either his part or others. Third, the British
monarch, then Queen Victoria, was declared the ruler of India. As
a consequence, the British government took over direct control of
the former East India Company territories and began a series of
robust treaty negotiations with the Indian princes to bring them
under indirect control.
In recognition of crown control, the governor-general now also
Key term
took the title of viceroy. The viceroy was accountable to Viceroy
Parliament through a secretary of state for India and an India The deputy for a
council. monarch.
It was recognised that the government must keep in touch with
Indian public opinion, both in its own territories and in the
princely states. As the first of a series of cautious measures to
involve Indians in government, the Legislative Council in India
now included Indian advisers, appointed by the viceroy.
In the princely states, a twin-track approach was adopted. The
hard line was that the states were pressured into recognising that
their independence was preserved and protected by the
dominance of British power and that they should do nothing to
challenge that. The more supportive line was investment in
education and training in their states, although this did not last
long. Of more interest to the princes was the establishment of an
elaborate hierarchy of honours and privileges, including the
number of guns permitted to fire in salute on state occasions. The
Star of India was the supreme award to favoured rulers.
 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 15
Key dates

Royal Proclamation: Victoria

1858 There was considerable warmth in the relationship between
Queen Victoria Queen Victoria and India. Indians broadly welcomed direct, if
declared Empress: distant, rule. Victoria herself maintained a special affection for
1877 India and, in later life, kept an Indian personal adviser in her
household, Abdul Karim.
The origin of this mutual admiration lies in the famous Royal
Proclamation of 1858, deliberately written by Viscount Canning,
the first viceroy, to suggest personal respect for Indians and
interest in their advancement.
After stating respect for ‘the rights, dignity and honour of
native Princes as our own … ’ and disclaiming any desire to
extend British territory, the key statement was:

… it is our further will that, so far as may be, our subjects, of

whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices
in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified, by their
education, ability, and integrity, duly to discharge.

This part of the proclamation was interpreted by the British as a

policy to develop, cautiously, the involvement of Indians at all
levels in the administration. On the Indian side, it would come
to be seen as laying the foundations for self-government.
However, at this time independence was not envisaged for the
foreseeable future, not least because educated Indians regarded
British rule as helpful to the social and economic development of
India itself.
In 1877 the special relationship was further acknowledged by a
proclamation that the Queen was now also Empress of India in
particular.

Religion
It was widely recognised that religious sensitivities had played a
major part in the causes of the rebellion. There were not only
Key term

Indigenous threats to the particular requirements of indigenous Hindu and

People native to a Muslim practice, but also a general resentment of missionary
place (but not activity, including widespread fears of compulsory conversion to
primitive). Christianity.
Accordingly, the proclamation also set out policy on religious
intervention:

We disclaim alike the right and desire to impose our [Christian]

convictions on any of our subjects. We declare it to be our royal will
and pleasure that none be in anywise favoured, none molested or
disquieted, by reason of their religious faith or observances, but
that all alike shall enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the
law and we do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in
authority under us that they abstain from all interference with the
religious belief or worship of any of our subjects on pain of our
highest displeasure.
16 | Britain and India 1845–1947

It has been argued that this also laid the foundations for
demands in the nationalist movement for recognition of separate
political rights for different religious communities. This in turn
became the demand for partition into separate nations based on
religious preference.

Key terms
Indian social renaissance Renaissance
The second half of the nineteenth century is often regarded as A rebirth or
the zenith of the British Raj. In fact, the British ceased to acquire flowering of culture.
territory and intervened less than before, certainly in moral or
Secular
religious matters. They turned instead to less controversial social
Public, non-
projects, dubbed ‘trains and drains’ by modern historian John
religious affairs.
Keay since it involved large-scale irrigation projects to increase
food production and avert famines. At the same time, there was a Babu
growth in secular education and in intellectual and cultural Bengali term for
debate. Conscious attempts were made to modernise religious clerk.
attitudes among both Hindus and Indian Muslims. There was a
growing sense of India as a nation in the making. This provided
the necessary conditions in which nationalist ideas and campaigns
could grow.
As the viceroy, Lord Ripon, explained:

We cannot now rely upon military force alone and policy as well as
justice ought to prompt us to endeavour to govern more and more
by means of and in accordance with that growing public opinion
which is beginning to show itself throughout the country.
We shall not subvert the British Empire by allowing the Bengali
baboo [babu] to discuss his own schools and drains. Rather shall
we afford him a safety-valve if we can turn his attention to such
innocuous subjects.

Three British projects, in particular, were significant to the

development of nationalist movements.

Entry to the Indian Civil Service

First, the terms of Victoria’s proclamation were honoured and
jobs in government were opened to Indian applicants. The
Indian Civil Service (ICS), which had been in effect a branch of
the East India Company, was turned into an efficient organisation
actually to run government in India. Entry to the ICS was by
examination (although only since 1853) and educated Indians
were now free to apply. There were two slight snags: there was
very little education in India itself and the examinations were
held in Britain. The costs of overcoming these barriers were
beyond the overwhelming majority of Indian families. According
to one historian, only 12 Indians had entered the ICS through
open examination by 1887. As a consequence of growing
resentment, the examinations were switched to India in the 1890s
but by 1913 Indians were only 5 per cent of the ICS.
 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 17

Investment in education
Second, and partly as a result of the recognition of these barriers,
there was a drive to increase education at all levels. Some higher
education had existed in the Bengal area. There was now
investment, not so much to provide the education, but to support
local initiatives. Progress was slow and it should be noted that it
was not until 1870 that comprehensive primary education was
established in Britain itself. However, there was huge expansion
of higher educational opportunity and the lower levels of
bureaucracy were filled with Indian civil servants, matched by a
slow withdrawal of Britons willing to work in the same grades.
The growth of education in the English language and of
professional employment gradually created an Indian middle
class which was to become the fertile soil of the nationalist
movement.

Communications and transport

The third area of progress was in communications and transport.
Notwithstanding the caste sensitivities noted above, the railway
network expanded relentlessly, partly for military and
governmental reasons, partly to stimulate trade and economy and
partly to prepare for the transportation of foodstuffs in the
likelihood of failed monsoons and regional famines. Similarly, the
modernisation of the Great Trunk Road linking Calcutta with the
Punjab along the towns of the Gangetic plain was a major project.
Along with a growing telegraph network, the railways permitted
the circulation across the whole of India of English-language
newspapers, the number of which was also expanding through
use of technology and the growth of the middle class. This in turn
fed a growing sense of national consciousness over and above the
historic regionalism created by geography and linguistic divisions.
Growing trade with Britain in both export of raw materials
(cotton, jute, rice, tea) and import of manufactured goods (cotton,
steel, engineering) also helped create an international outlook
and connections with global, albeit imperialist, economies.

Key question The Aligarh movement

How did Muslim Leading Indians also took steps to regenerate society through
regeneration lead education and modernisation. The aim was to create a
eventually to Westernised intellectual class, and increase both Indian self-
partition? respect and British confidence by the adoption of cooperative and
forward-looking ideas amongst Indians. This was particularly true
of the Muslim community which still felt blamed for the Mutiny.
Key dates

Foundation of Aligarh In 1875, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan founded the Muslim Anglo-
College: 1875 Oriental College. Besides education in Islamic studies and the
Ilbert Bill: 1883 Urdu language, much emphasis was placed on studying Western
science, literature and history. In 1913, it became a full university.
The location of Aligarh College gave its name to a broad
movement across India with the aim of increasing Muslim
prominence in social affairs. Although Khan supported a general
unity of Hindus and Muslims, the movement also initiated the
idea of two self-respecting communal nations within India.
18 | Britain and India 1845–1947

The Aligarh movement rejected involvement in any agitation and

members were told not to join the Congress Party after its
formation in 1885 (see below). However, this was as much because
there was also a determination to secure special political
representation for Muslims. This led to the formation of a
political organisation (party), the All-India Muslim League in
1906 (see below). The Muslim League would eventually become,
under its final leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the driving force
for partition and the creation of Muslim Pakistan.

The Ilbert Bill

Even as the British and Indians were jointly bringing into
existence an educated middle class, almost without noticing, the
British were withdrawing as a social group. They held themselves
aloof from the new India, particularly as it became more
interested in politics. Whereas the employees of the East India
Company lived alongside Indians, to the extent that many had
Indian wives and mistresses, the imperial Britons shunned
contact. It has been be said that the British turned themselves
into an ultra-caste, with their own various jatis of status marked by
title, residence, social peers and activity. They became
increasingly obsessed with their own affairs, particularly in the
hot season when almost the entire British class moved up into the
cooler hill towns and the summer capital of Simla (Shimla).
This attitude was seen in practice in 1883 with the reaction to
the so-called Ilbert Bill. The bill was a rational consequence of
increasing numbers of Indians entering the legal profession and
the judiciary, as qualified and experienced as any Briton. It
proposed that at lower levels, the jurisdiction of the courts should
be applied equally to Britons and Indians. There was little initial
reaction to the measure when put in such abstract terms.

Reaction of Europeans
Key question
As soon as it was realised that, in practice, this meant that white How did the
Britons would be tried by Indian judges there was uproar. Europeans in India
In some way there returned the mutiny fear that white British react to the Ilbert Bill?
women would be left to the mercies of local males, who had done
nothing to protect their own womenfolk from the terrors of sati,
for example.
The British made it clear that they would refuse to obey the law
if passed and the proposal was amended to preserve
discrimination so that all-white juries would reach the verdict on
white defendants.
The effect of this so-called ‘white mutiny’ on educated Indian
opinion was two-fold. First, there was increased pessimism that
the British would ever really respect Indians, let alone give them
responsibility and power. This created more support for
nationalist ideas as they began to develop. Second, the success of
threatened widespread passive resistance to the rule of law was
noted for future reference, not least perhaps by Mohandas
Gandhi, aged 14 years at the time, but shortly to become a lawyer
 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 19

and subsequently the greatest exponent of non-violent resistance

in history.

The formation of Congress

Key terms Key dates

Formation of Although it would be tempting to see the formation of the Indian

Congress Party: 1885 National Congress in 1885 as a response to the Ilbert Bill, its
Indian Councils Act: origins have been discerned in the imperial durbar of January
1892 1877. The leaders of the Pune Sarvajanik Sabha published an
open letter to the princes, chiefs and gentlemen invited to the
Congress durbar of which the following is a key passage:
A meeting.
The gathering of so many representative men from all parts of India
Durbar
is an event of national importance … the commencement of that
Imperial
fusion of races and creeds, the second birth of the great Indian
celebration.
nation. You are the great Notables of the land, the first Parliament
Sabha of the united Indian nation, the first Congress of the representatives
An association. of [its] diverse states and nationalities … We propose … that you
will all meet together in private gatherings and discuss with each
other our present situation and future prospects.

The first Congresses were indeed more like educational meetings

than political conferences. In due course, however, Congress, as it
quickly became known, would become a recognisable political
party and the driving force for nationalism and full independence
over the next 50 years.
Perhaps strange to relate, therefore, that its founder was a Scot,
Allan Octavian Hume; perhaps not, given that the early years of
Congress saw it arguing for only slight concessions from the
British Raj which it generally regarded as a good thing for India.

The Indian Councils Act

One such concession was the 1892 Indian Councils Act which
modestly increased the number of Indians on local councils.

Summary diagram: Raj and renaissance

Crown control
Viceroy

Aligarh movement Indian renaissance

Ilbert Bill
‘White mutiny’
Formation of Congress
20 | Britain and India 1845–1947

4 | Imperialism and Nationalism

Imperialist attitudes Key question
In the late nineteenth century the British Empire was the largest What was the attitude
in world history. It was, however, but one of a number of to independence?
European empires then at their height. The French, Belgians,
Germans and Italians together with the British had all scrambled
for parts of Africa and nearer to home the Austro-Hungarian and

Key term
Ottoman Empires remained solid. All had difficulties with local Ottoman Empire
peoples and politics, but there was no sense that imperialism as a Islamic Empire of
global system would disappear. However, history taught the lesson the Middle East and
of inexorable decline and fall and many South American modern Turkey.
countries had gained independence from Spain in the nineteenth
century itself.
Official British policy was commitment to eventual Indian self-
government within the Empire. There was no sense that
independence would ever be a goal of British policy and even
self-government was seen publicly as a lengthy project of many
decades. Empires were costly to run but they provided easy
colonial markets for goods manufactured in the European home
countries to the benefit of the home economy.
Privately, as revealed in contemporary correspondence and
later memoirs, most British leaders and officials desired the
process of political development to be so drawn out as to be
without a date. The sheer size and symbolism of India as a
‘possession’ of the British made it indispensable to the British
power across the globe. In addition, the Indian Army was a huge
military force at its disposal in Asia. Figures such as Viceroy
Curzon and Winston Churchill, later prime minister, openly
declared that without India, Britain would be a second- or third-
rate power.
Socially, the British shouldered willingly the so-called white
man’s burden of passing on and nurturing European culture and
civilisation. Such a responsibility was of course self-defined and
self-justifying. One British leader described it, perhaps tastelessly,
as ‘splendid happy slavery’. In practice, however, it did mean the
development of at least an educated élite which was, by 1900,
becoming a challenge to the British. The growth of a babu élite
was outstripping employment opportunities. This of course
created discontent but it also meant that the same group had
time on its hands to imagine a different way of governing India.
In addition, being educated they used letters to the newspapers
as a way of sharing ideas and complaints.
Although this might be seen as one of the roots of nationalist
consciousness in the twentieth century, in fact thinking was still
cooperative. As one correspondent to the Kesari newspaper wrote
(quoted in Mehrotra, 1978):

We are thoroughly convinced that India cannot recover her national

freedom in the real sense of the word independently of English
protection, assistance and control. We are aware of the loss which
we are at present suffering from British government yet we do not
 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 21

believe that our condition will be any better by the exchange of the
British rule for that of any other nation … Since we are not in a
position to gain our independence by fighting with the English or to
preserve it when gained it is desirable that we should advance step
by step behaving in a conciliatory manner with the British.

Moreover, all parties had taken notice of the defeat in 1886 of the
bill to provide home rule for Ireland. On the one hand, if the
oldest British colony was not to be granted movement towards
independence then there was no hope for India; on the other,
perhaps Ireland was too close for comfort and India might pose a
more persuasive case of difference.
In short, perhaps the most that could be hoped for, sooner or
Key term

Dominion status later, was that India would gain dominion status within the
A category of self- Empire. Dominion status had been granted to Canada in 1867
government within (and Australia was scheduled for 1901). For India, the key
the British Empire question was whether India was yet a nation. Many certainly
denoting a full spoke of it as a nation in the making. But the fact that today
nation. many consider it to be still a nation in the making only reinforces
the view that, in 1900, many considered there to be some doubt
about ever unifying India under Indian rule.
As a twentieth-century Indian politician, Chandra Pal,
commented (quoted in Brown, 1994):

Our language has no word corresponding to the English word

nation … And the reason is that our social synthesis practically
stopped with the race-idea.

British India
The governance of British India retained the structure of the
settlement in the aftermath of the great rebellion of 1857 as set
out in Figure 1.1.
The peoples of Britain and British India alike were subjects of
the crown. The monarch was head of state and emperor/empress
of India in particular. In common conception, this figurehead was
supreme although constitutionally the king or queen was the
crown in Parliament.
Responsibility for Indian affairs rested with the secretary of
state for India, a member of the cabinet and accountable to
Parliament, who was advised by the India Council.
In India itself, the viceroy was supreme, the representative of
the monarch but appointed by the prime minister and
accountable to the secretary of state. The personal and political
relationship of these two post-holders – viceroy and secretary of
state – was crucial to the initiation, or otherwise, of constitutional
and political developments in and for India. Key reforms in the
twentieth century are often known by the joint names of the
respective leaders.
Although technological progress meant that by 1900
telegraphic communication between London and India was
relatively quick and easy, the viceroy had considerable powers of
delegated government and, in states of emergency, absolute
22 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Crown
Queen – Empress
Parliament

Secretary of State for India

India Council
British
Indian
British as National
Viceroy
dominant power

Indian
Civil Service Legislative Council

Provincial
Princes Governors

Provincial Legislative
Councils
British residents
or agents District officers

Local
Palace-appointed Local Councils
Local officials
officials

Figure 1.1: Governance of British India after 1857.

power. (This power was carried over into the independent period
and exercised for considerable periods in both India and
Pakistan.)
The viceroy had a military commander-in-chief in India,
overseeing the three armies still based on the presidencies of the
East India Company, and was advised by a national Legislative
Council, overwhelmingly composed of British officials.
The 11 British provinces (unchanged since 1857) had
governors, advised by provincial councils, although only certain
matters were permitted for discussion and decision.

The princely states

In 1900, many areas of the subcontinent were still not ruled
directly by the British. About one-fifth of the population,
72 million people, were the subjects of the 561 Indian rulers, with
various titles such as Rajah, Nawab or Nizam, known collectively
as the Indian princes.
The princes ruled nominally independent states (originally
styled native states and then princely states), which varied
 British India
AFGHANISTAN
KASHMIR Princely states
N.W. FRONTIER CHINA Princely states permitted
PERSIA PROVINCE full 21-gun salute
Lahore
PUNJAB

BALUCHISTAN
New Delhi
RAJPUTANA UNITED ASSAM
PROVINCES
SIND GWALIOR
Karachi BIHAR BENGAL
Dhaka
BARODA Calcutta BURMA
CENTRAL FRENCH
PROVINCES INDOCHINA

BOMBAY
ORISSA
Bombay
HYDERABAD Bay of SIAM
Bengal
Arabian

The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 23

Sea
N
RAS

MYSORE Madras
MAD

0 400 800
CEYLON
km

Indian Ocean

India c.1900 showing British provinces and major princely states.

24 | Britain and India 1845–1947

considerably in size. Some states, such as Hyderabad in the south

or Jammu and Kashmir in the north-west (c. 200,000 km2 each),
were larger than Britain itself. Others were so small they were
more like country estates and could not be found on maps.

Paramountcy and oversight

After the mutiny, the British stopped acquiring territory either by
military force or by political annexation. They permitted the
Indian princes to continue to rule, partly as a reward for loyalty
during the mutiny and partly to save more direct expense by the
government. Moreover, they established formal honours to flatter
the princes.
On the other hand, the princely states were forced to

Key terms
acknowledge Britain as the paramount power within the Paramount power
subcontinent. This too was typically sweetened as a treaty A diplomatic term
guaranteeing British military protection. However, the British for the most
reserved, and sometimes exercised, the right to remove a prince powerful force,
found to be working against the British interest or causing trouble often an occupying
with neighbouring princes. army.
In order to monitor princely politics, a British official was
Peripatetic
placed in the royal court. In the larger states, such an official was
Moving round from
known as the resident. Smaller states received visits from a
one workplace to
peripatetic agent.
another.
Sati, female infanticide and slavery were practised in some
princely states without British intervention in accordance with Communal
post-rebellion policy. More attention was paid to persuading Relating to a
princes to reduce their armed forces. Military intervention was religious
found necessary in some cases, for example in Manipur in 1891, community across
resulting in executions of officials, exile of princes and the whole
appointment of alternative rulers. population.
However, in line with educational policy, rulers were
Sacred cow
encouraged to establish colleges for the education of their sons in
In Hinduism actual
the British public school mould. Some acquired the taste for
cows are sacred; the
European style and used their wealth to live it up in Britain.
term is widely used
Although this caused concern about possible resentment among
to indicate a
the population, of still more concern to the British were rulers
protected idea.
who were so progressive that they veered towards nationalist
sentiments.

Communal India
Running through the old India of the princely states and the new
order of British India was the third, communal India of national
and international religions, of linguistic divisions and of regional
consciousness.

Hindus
Hinduism had undergone a revival in the second half of the
nineteenth century as part of the social and cultural renaissance.
Pride and sensitivity had increased to the extent that in many
provinces the protection of sacred cows was the major political
issue. This in turn offered more opportunity to those determined
to cause offence and stir up inter-religious communal violence.
 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 25

At the same time, a more intellectual and spiritual interest had

grown to match the stirrings of nationalism. For a long time
being a Hindu mostly involved general social behaviour but it
now became normal to talk of Hinduism as a self-conscious faith.
This fusion of modernisation and of traditionalism took on the
Key terms

Sanskrit name Sanskritisation.

An ancient Indian
language. Muslims
Muslims observed a growing Hindu assertiveness with concern.
Khalifah
Hitherto, as long as their customs could be practised unhindered,
Deputy of the
Hindu society had seemed content to live under another’s
founder of Islam,
regime. This had been the basis of stable Mughal rule for many
sometimes caliph.
years. Now they feared the boot would be on the other foot.
During the 1890s Muslim defence associations were formed.
The decline and fall of Mughal power remained not just a
historical disappointment, but a real personal problem of politics
and religion. The religion of Islam obliged Muslims to work for
the political dominance of Islam or to move to an existing Islamic
country. In addition, Muslims owed an allegiance to the Khalifah,
in the person of the reigning Sultan of Turkey. This international
political dimension to the community of Islam was viewed with
suspicion. As a result of all this, subcontinental Muslims remained
undecided about committing to Indian nationalism.

Sikhs
Amidst this religious sensitivity, the Sikhs too felt anxious. The
Sikhs were clustered in the province of the Punjab along with
roughly equal numbers of Muslims. To the north-west, the
provinces were overwhelmingly Muslim, the south-east was
overwhelmingly Hindu, the northern provinces of the Gangetic
plain were fairly mixed whereas parts of Bengal were again
predominantly Muslim.

Summary diagram: Imperialism and nationalism

Imperialism

Governance of
British India Princely states

Communal India
26 | Britain and India 1845–1947

The key debate: historiography

There are two broad approaches in the historiography of Indian
independence. Books intended for a commercial British market
focus on British rule and conclude with the business of endings
and departures. Independence is granted and power is handed
over but there is also to some extent an implication of
mismanagement and failure, an air of accusation and justification.
Nevertheless, this view of the British in India is in harmony with
an enduring popular fascination with the culture of the
subcontinent, ranging from restaurants through tourism to music
and film.
Less widely available are books which focus on the continuity
and integrity of the development of the nationalist aspiration and
campaigns. This view of India is a matter of rights, demands and
struggle, culminating in success and a new beginning. While there
are many detailed and scholarly texts, one should be wary of an
explicitly nationalist approach to the independence movement,
particularly on non-authoritative websites.
A crucial aspect of the historiography is the treatment of
Muslim campaigns and the Pakistan movement. Generally
speaking, the desire to keep India together is regarded as
honourable if not entirely realistic. By contrast, Muslim demands
are sometimes presented as a late feature with implications of
opportunism, inconsistency or even perversity. Jinnah is subtly
presented as an obstructive and manipulative character, almost a
villain, whereas Gandhi and Nehru are presented as determined
and politically adept even when adopting the same tactics as

Key term
Jinnah. Divide and rule
Through this book the continuity of Muslim concerns and their Imperialist strategy,
relationship to the tactics of the Congress Party and concessions from Romans
by the British government will be explored. A key judgement to onward, of
be made is whether the British sympathised with the Muslim provoking enmities
demands or whether these demands were used to split the to prevent subject
nationalist movement. Such a policy when used by a dominant groups uniting in
power is termed ‘divide and rule’. opposition.
 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 27

Some key books in the debate

Histories
A.C. Banerjee, The Constitutional History of India (in three volumes)
(Macmillan, 1978).
J. Brown, Modern India (Oxford University Press, 1994).
T. Coates (ed.), The Amritsar Massacre (Stationery Office, 2000).
L. Collins and D. Lapierre, Freedom at Midnight (HarperCollins, 1997).
P. French, Liberty or Death (Flamingo 1998).
H.V. Hodson, The Great Divide (Oxford University Press, 1985).
L. James, Raj (Little Brown, 1997).
C. Markovits, A History of Modern India 1480–1950 (Anthem, 2004).
P. Mehra, A Dictionary of Modern Indian History, 1707–1947 (Oxford
University Press, 1987).
S.R. Mehrotra, Towards India’s Freedom (Vikas, 1978).
P. Robb, A History of India (Palgrave, 2002).
P. Shankar Jha, Kashmir 1947 (Oxford University Press, 1996).
S. Wolpert, Shameful Flight (Oxford University Press, 2006).
Biographies, Memoirs and Anthologies
A.S. Ahmed, Jinnah, Pakistan and the Search for Saladin (Routledge,
1997).
M.J. Akbar, Nehru: The Making of India (Viking Penguin, 1988).
U. Butalia, The Other Side of Silence (Hurst, 2000).
L. Fischer, The Essential Gandhi (Vintage, 1983).
B. Parekh, Gandhi, A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 1997).
S. Taroor, Nehru, the Invention of India (Arcade, 2005).
S. Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan (Oxford University Press, 1989).
28 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Study Guide: AS Questions

In the style of Edexcel

Source 1
From: a letter sent from Queen Victoria to Prime Minister Lord
Salisbury, at the end of the nineteenth century.
The viceroy must hear for himself what the feelings of the natives
really are, and do what he thinks right if we are to go on
peaceably and happily in India, and to be liked and beloved by
high and low. And not try to trample on the people, continually
reminding them and making them feel that they are a conquered
people.

Source 2
From: a letter to a Kesari newspaper in 1900 quoted in
S.R. Mehrotra, Towards India’s Freedom, published in 1978.
We do not believe our condition will be any better by the
exchange of the British rule for that of any other nation. Since we
are not in a position to gain our independence by fighting with
the English, it is desirable that we should advance step by step
behaving in a conciliatory manner with the British.

Source 3
A photograph of part of the great procession of the Indian
princes at the Delhi Durbar in 1903. This occasion was organised
by the viceroy, Lord Curzon, for the princes to acknowledge the
Coronation of Edward VII.
 The Subcontinent 1800–1900 | 29

Use Sources 1, 2 and 3 and your own knowledge.

How far do these sources suggest that British rule was accepted in
India at the beginning of the twentieth century? Explain your
answer, using the evidence of Sources 1, 2 and 3. (20 marks)

Exam tips
This is an example of your first question, which is compulsory. It is a
short-answer question, and you should not write more than three or
four paragraphs. Note that you are required to reach a judgement on
the evidence of these sources only. The question does not ask you
to write what you know about attitudes to British Rule in India in the
early twentieth century. However, you should apply your own
knowledge to the sources when you use them. For example, in the
case of Source 1, you should be aware of the role of a viceroy, and
so the examiners will not explain that to you. More importantly, your
own knowledge of Queen Victoria’s position will enable you to see
her instructions and concerns as knowledgeable and authoritative
and you should bear that in mind when you use the content of
Source 1.
When you deal with a visual source, such as Source 3, do not just
concentrate on describing what you can see. Instead, think about
what the details suggest or imply. From Source 3 you can see a
huge occasion, the attendance of huge crowds, the richly decorated
carriages carried by the many elephants. What does all that
suggest? You have evidence of the acknowledgement and
celebration of the coronation with great splendour. On the other
hand, since this was organised by the viceroy, it is part of a process
to promote and cement acceptance of British rule as well as
evidence of its acceptance.
When you deal with these types of questions you are weighing up
the evidence. Bear in mind that the evidence of the sources you are
given will point in different directions. So, in this case, you will know
immediately that there is some evidence suggesting acceptance of
British rule and some evidence challenging that. First, sort points
from the sources into two columns according to whether they
suggest acceptance or questioning of British rule. Source 1 shows
the queen to be sensitive to the feelings of the people, but her
concerns could suggest that there is some evidence of resentment.
How could you use the source content to support both those
points? How can Source 2 be used similarly to show both
questioning, and acceptance of, British rule?
After you have placed evidence on both sides, ask yourself
whether there is more weight on one side. Having considered each
of the sources, try to group points from them together and then
come to a conclusion.
2
POINTS TO CONSIDER
Discontent to
Outrage 1901–19

In the period 1901–19, Indians began to see the British in a

new light. The idea that the British were a civilising authority
was seriously damaged by a high-handed viceroy, Lord
Curzon, by the bloodbath of the First World War and by the
Amritsar Massacre in 1919.
Liberal Party governments in Britain passed legislation to
involve more Indians in the administration of India. However,
there were also more organised political movements in
India.
This chapter examines in more detail:
• Political reorganisation made by the British, notably the
Partition of Bengal
• Indian political campaigns, splits and agreements
• The effect of the First World War and the Amritsar
Massacre
• Major political concession and reform by the British

Key dates
1901 North West Frontier Province created
1905 Russia defeated by Japan
October 16 Partition of Bengal
December Liberal government
1906 October Simla delegation
December All-India Muslim League formed
1907 Congress split at Surat
1909 Indian Councils Act
1911 Bengal reunited and Delhi became
British capital
1914 Outbreak of the First World War
1916 Formation of home rule leagues
Lucknow Pact
1917 August 20 Montagu Declaration
1918 End of the First World War
US President Wilson’s Fourteen
Points
1919 Rowlatt Act
April 13 Amritsar Massacre
December Government of India Act
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 31

1 | Reorganisation
Key question Curzon
What did Curzon At the dawn of the twentieth century, the Viceroy of India, Lord
want to achieve? Curzon, regarded his purpose as preserving India for the British
Empire forever. History, however, regards his two successive terms
of office as high noon for the Raj. Had Curzon retired after the
durbar of 1903, his reputation, even as a dedicated imperialist,
might have been safe. But he was then only 47 years old and
accepted a second term of office without self-doubt. The
controversial and failed policies of his second term damaged the
reputation of the entire British government in India and stoked
up the campaigns which would, within 50 years, see the British
give up India completely.
Curzon had two clear objectives: first, to make India’s territory
less vulnerable to external threats and, second, to make British
administration of India more efficient, more respected and
therefore less vulnerable to criticism and political threats. In
pursuit of both objectives, he embarked on reorganisation of
certain provinces. The disastrous partition of the province of
Bengal merits more detailed analysis further below.

Frontier policy
Curzon’s greatest success was the creation of a buffer zone
between the developed civilisation of the Indo-Gangetic plains
and the lawless Afghan tribal areas – the ‘wild north-west’, so to
speak. Beyond lay the Russian Empire with which Britain had
Key term

The Great Game engaged in the Great Game throughout the latter half of the
The spying and nineteenth century.
skirmishing that In this volatile area, Curzon replaced British troops, whose
accompanied the presence was itself creating tension within the territory, with a
continuing Russo- new military force of local warriors under British command.
British rivalry and Then, in 1901, he separated out from the Punjab a new North
competition. West Frontier Province to create more direct responsibility more
likely to be respected by local warlords. This dangerous area, now
straddling the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, still
Key date

North West Frontier remains out of the direct control of either government.
Province created: In Jammu and Kashmir province, control was extended further
1901 north to the mountainous edges of the Russian and Chinese
Empires. This expansion too remains politically sensitive and was
the cause of war between India and China in 1962.
Finally, and most spectacularly, Curzon became convinced that
the Russians were moving into Tibet, an area beyond the
Himalaya ruled by Buddhist monks and controlled by China. In
1904, Curzon ordered Sir Francis Younghusband to lead an
expedition to investigate. They encountered no Russians and
annexed Tibet but only by machine-gunning monks trying to
defend their territory. The image of a civilised, competent British
Empire was seriously tarnished.
32 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Profile: Lord Curzon 1859–1925

1859 – Born in Derbyshire
1885 – Entered Parliament
1887 – Extensive travels in Asia
1891–2 – Undersecretary for India
1895–8 – Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs
1899 January – Viceroy of India
1905 November – Resigned as Viceroy
1925 – Died

Curzon seems to have been fascinated by India and the Empire

since his time at Eton, public school of the British élite. One
writer has wryly attributed this to the fact that the Viceroy’s
residence was modelled on Kedleston Hall, Curzon’s home. As a
student he described himself as ‘George Nathaniel Curzon, a most
superior person’.
Curzon was passionate about the value of India, politically and
culturally. He saw the position of Viceroy as his destiny and,
unprecedently, sought to be appointed. His letters to politicians
demonstrate his conviction about the importance of India to the
Empire: ‘We have not the smallest intention of abandoning our
Indian possessions and … it is highly improbable that any such
intention will be entertained by our posterity.’
Curzon was high-minded and the scourge of British
incompetence and injustice when he felt it threatened the moral
and practical authority of the British minority in India. When the
officers of the West Kent Regiment failed to investigate the gang
rape of an elderly Burmese woman by their soldiers, Curzon had
the entire regiment posted to the Arabian desert region of Aden
for two years without leave.
However, his high self-regard led to his downfall in a political
trial of strength between himself and the commander-in-chief of
the Indian Army, Lord Kitchener. Curzon offered his resignation
(as a tactic) and was astounded to find it accepted in the
aftermath of the Bengal partition. His later career was
disappointing. He did become Chancellor of Oxford University
but, in 1912, he was still bitter enough to reject the suggestion of
an honorary degree for the Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore,
who would a year later receive the Nobel prize. There was
perhaps tragic consolation in the ruin of Kitchener’s reputation in
the First World War.

Administrative policy
Curzon was a champion of both progress and conservation. He
Key question
How did Curzon try to
increased the railway network by 10,000 km (from 43,000 to improve India?
53,000 km) and the area of irrigated land by 3 million hectares.
As well as a new department of agriculture, he established the
Indian Archaeological Survey and worked to preserve
architectural treasures, particularly the Taj Mahal.
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 33

Within the British administration, Curzon’s imperious manner

also found a target in bureaucracy. He mocked the slowness of
procedures and cut down reports and surveys. But he was not
complacent. In 1904, he established a Criminal Investigation
Department in every province with the aim of providing secret
police reports on Indian political activities. Ironically, this led to
criticism from some British governors of being too ‘Russian’.
Curzon caused public controversy in his second term when he
instituted an inquiry into the state of Indian higher education but
failed to include any Indians on the inquiry committee. The
resulting Universities Act (1904) aimed to restrict the huge
growth in the number of private colleges and to include more
centrally nominated officials on larger university governing
bodies. The growing Indian middle class perceived an attack on
its interest and an insult to its capability. Its resentment was ready
to turn to resistance.
Curzon would shortly provide a perfect cause in the bungled
partition of Bengal. First, however, we must catch up with political
developments in the Congress Party.

Key question Development of Congress to 1905

How did Congress For many years after its foundation, Congress had remained what
move towards being a the name meant – a large meeting – which in its case was held
political party? every December in one of the Indian cities. Both Hindus and
Muslims came to Congress and were prominent in its affairs. One
early decision had been to ensure that its discussions did not
alienate religious groups and weaken its claim to speak for all
India.
The Congress had gained enormously in popularity among the
educated and commercial middle class. The preparation for such
a large conference was complex. It was not just the arrangement
of accommodation for visitors from across the subcontinent but
more importantly decisions about what, and what not, to discuss.
Over the years to the end of the nineteenth century, therefore,
the organising committee became more important. The
committee became the representatives of Congress and this
created the conditions for a permanent political party. Congress
debated its aims for India and the kind of demands it should
make of the British government.
Of course, there were no general elections in which it might
put up candidates. Congress adopted a strategy of lobbying MPs
in Britain itself and so most of Congress’ early activity was
directed at raising money to fund a small organisation, office and
newspaper in London.
Most of the demands of Congress were related to increasing
education and access to positions in the administration of India.
The British capital in India was Calcutta, in the populous
province of Bengal, and so it was in Bengal that Indians saw most
opportunity and experienced most disappointment. Bengal was
home to a growing number of Indians who saw their situation in
class terms. They were educated and ambitious but still squeezed
out of the Indian Civil Service.
34 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Partition of Bengal
Causes Key question
Why did Curzon
Opinion is divided about the motivation for the plan to partition decide on partition?
Bengal. On the one hand, the administration of Bengal had been
recognised as a problem for a long time. Although a province in

Key terms
Indian terms, its population of 78 million people was twice as Partition
large as Britain’s. Bengal was vulnerable to famine when the The formal division
monsoon failed, but with such a concentration of workers it was of a state or
also prone to unrest, such as the so-called Blue Mutiny of indigo province.
workers.
Indigo
In the period of the East India Company, when the Governor
Purple dye from the
of the Presidency of Bengal was automatically also the Governor
the leaves of a
General of British India, a Lieutenant Governor for Bengal itself
plant.
had been needed. In the late nineteenth century various plans
had been discussed for reorganising the province to make it more
manageable. Indeed, it was partly the endless deliberation about
this matter which had provoked Curzon to streamline the
bureaucracy and it was in Curzon’s character to seek to resolve the
problem itself in a robust way.
On the other hand, there were more immediate political
motives. The success and confidence of Congress and the
discontent among educated Bengalis disturbed the British.
Curzon hinted at his aims by considering Congress’ likely reaction
when he wrote to the secretary of state in 1905 with the final
partition proposal:

Calcutta is the centre from which the Congress Party is

manipulated throughout the whole of Bengal and indeed the whole
of India … the whole of their activity is directed to creating an
agency so powerful that they may one day be able to force a weak
government to give them what they desire. Any measure in
consequence that would divide the Bengali-speaking population;
that would permit independent centres of activity and influence to
grow up; that would dethrone Calcutta from its place as the centre
of successful intrigue or that would weaken the lawyer class, who
have the entire organisation in their hands, is intensely and hotly
resented by them.

This is a classic expression of the policy of divide and rule.

Indians were aware of these attitudes and nationalist historians
have argued that this was the unspoken British policy behind
territorial partition and creating divisions between Hindus or
Congress and Muslims.

Partition
Key date

Despite a complete lack of formal consultation with Indians, Partition of Bengal:

Bengali or otherwise, the plan was approved by the secretary of October 1905
state and came into effect on 16 October 1905.
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 35

CHINESE EMPIRE
SIKKIM

NEPAL
BHUTAN

N
UNITED
PROVINCES ASSAM

EAST
BENGAL To Assam 1905
BIHAR
and Reunited 1911
ORISSA Dacca
WEST BURMA
BENGAL (British Indian
CENTRAL To Bihar Province)
PROVINCES Orissa 1905 Calcutta
Reunited 1911

Bay of
Bengal

National border
0 100 200 300 Provincial border
km Line of partition 1905

Partition of Bengal in 1905.

Out of several adjacent provinces, two new provinces were

created:
• Western Bengal with Bihar and Orissa (and the provincial
capital at Calcutta) had a total population of 54 million,
including 42 million Hindus and nine million Muslims.
• Eastern Bengal with Assam (and the provincial capital at
Dacca) had a total population of 31 million, including
12 million Hindus and 18 million Muslims.

Reaction
Key question
What were the The partition created a precedent for the reorganisation of
political territory and government along religious lines.
consequences of The Bengali Hindus were outraged by what they saw as the
partition? attempt to divide and rule. The partition cut right through the
unity of the Bengali-speaking community in order to create a
majority Muslim province with equal status. Not only that, within
Western Bengal itself, the Bengalis were outnumbered by the
populations of Bihar and Orissa.
In the short term, the Muslims were delighted with the majority
in the new eastern province. This would provide them with a
power base if and when Indians were able to elect provincial
governments.
36 | Britain and India 1845–1947

National protest
But it was more than a Bengali matter. Congress found itself at
the head of a national unity of mood bringing together both the
educated middle class and peasant-worker protesters while
marginalising any lingering aristocratic leadership.
Three forms of protest action were adopted. In the first place,
the normal channels of public discussion in newspaper articles
and letters were of course used.

Swadesh
More significantly, there developed a popular campaign of

Key term
swadesh. This was not a new idea and Indians could point to the Swadesh
non-cooperation campaign of the white British over the Ilbert Bill A campaign not to
as a model. However, the Bengal swadeshi campaign seized the buy something –
national imagination to create a feeling of self-respect. The known as a boycott
swadeshi campaigns included a boycott of buying British goods in English.
and Lancashire cotton in particular, which was publicly burned.
The anniversary of the partition was declared an annual day of
mourning.

Terrorism
However, some were not satisfied with such passive resistance
methods so there was also, thirdly, an increase in terrorist activity
in Bengal. In 1908, two European women were killed when a
bomb, intended for a local judge, was thrown into the wrong
carriage. In 1909, the terrorism came to London, when an official
at the India Office was shot in the street by a Punjabi seeking
political martyrdom.
This caused a problem for Congress. There was a growing
tension between those who believed in peaceful, lawful methods –
the moderates – and those who wanted more urgent, direct, even
violent action – the radicals or extremists. This tension would
come to a head at the 1907 Congress in Surat.

Problems for the future

However, the first national unrest since the mutiny was if anything
more of a problem for Curzon, whose second term of office ended
under a cloud.
The radicals could credibly claim that the British would never
be fair to Indians and even Gokhale, leader of the moderates,
complained about the lack of consultation over the partition of
Bengal. There was little evidence with which to resist demands for
Congress to work towards independence from Britain.
On the other hand, the anger at the deliberate creation of a
Muslim majority province suggested to Muslims that an
independent India dominated politically by Hindu Congress
Key date

would never be fair to their community. Liberal government:

From 1906, the new Liberal government was quietly December 1905
determined to put things right without giving in straightaway.
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 37

Key question
The Congress split
How did the Congresses were held in the cool dry weather of December. Since
moderates defeat the the beginning, the efforts of the local Congress supporters (the
extremists? reception committee) in the city where the Congress was to be
held were rewarded with the honour of choosing the president to
run the Congress.
The 1906 Congress was held in Calcutta, at the heart of
Bengali protest, and seemed likely to swing in a radical direction.
Strong efforts by the moderates succeeded in getting an ageing
president elected for a third time as a compromise. They also
Key terms

Resolution managed to tone down various radical resolutions, including one

A formal decision at in favour of swaraj, which was reinterpreted as meaning
a meeting, often achievement of the same system of government as in the self-
voted on. governing British colonies.
After the Congress, Gokhale toured the country promoting the
Swaraj
moderate view of progress towards self-government within
Literally self-rule,
Empire and presenting swadesh as more like a positive choice of
thus meaning
Indian goods rather than a boycott or rejection of British goods
independence.
and institutions.
It became apparent that the radicals would make a redoubled
attempt at the next Congress to prevent Congress leadership
watering down their demands again.
Key date

Congress split at The 1907 Congress was scheduled for Nagpur, a Maratha city
Surat: 1907 and sympathetic to Tilak’s radicals. At the last moment, the
moderates switched the venue to Surat, one of their strongholds,
which would ensure the president was one of them. Their final
tactic was a proposal to change the constitution of Congress so
that members would be obliged to accept the objective of self-
government within the British Empire. In other words, it would
be impossible to be a member of Congress and support radical
demands. The moderates wanted no more debate on the subject
and preferred simply to change the rules.
The heated proceedings were reported in the (Manchester)
Guardian newspaper. After the election of a moderate president,
there was an outburst of cries of ‘Remember Nagpur!’ and
proceedings were suspended. When they resumed, Tilak asked to
speak, was ignored and promptly started to interrupt the
president’s opening speech. There was even greater uproar,
during which Gokhale attempted to physically protect his great
rival. At some point, a shoe was thrown, a Maratha shoe of red
leather with a sole made of lead, which struck one of the leaders.
A full-scale brawl of hundreds broke out, the police arrived and
proceedings were aborted.
It seemed to the radicals that the Congress had broken up. But
the moderates met in private the next day, called a meeting which
they termed a national convention and elected a convention
committee which in due course framed a new Congress
constitution requiring acceptance of the moderate objective of
self-government within Empire.
It seemed to the moderates that they had succeeded. Indeed,
for a decade the radicals were excluded from Congress. The
moderate victory seemed complete when some of the radical
38 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Profile: Gopal Krishna Gokhale 1866–1915

1866 – Born in Kolhat, western India
1886 – Schoolteacher after studying law
1889 – Member of Congress
1890 – Secretary to Poona Sarvajanik Sabha
1895 – Secretary of Congress
1897–1914 – Made several political visits to England
1902 – Elected to Imperial Legislative Council
1905–15 – President of Congress
1915 – Died

Gokhale was born into a Brahmin family from western India. He

was drawn to mainstream Indian nationalism and rose rapidly
through a series of political appointments.
Gokhale was an admirer of the British Raj, seeing it as an
opportunity to prepare India for self-government on a secular
basis. He favoured cooperation with the British and persuasion
with Indians. He wanted self-government but it had to be
achieved through constructive political means, supported by
social reform, especially more and better education. He opposed
mass action, especially anything which challenged authority or
law and order.
Nevertheless, Gokhale was a devastating critic of the British
within the political arena. He used an annual opportunity to
discuss the budget in the Imperial Legislative Council to survey
the entire rule of the British in India.
Gokhale appealed to the cautious Indian middle class and was
in tune with the British Liberal government, working closely with
John Morley, Secretary of State for India. His leadership of
Congress ensured that the moderate view prevailed.
Gandhi recognised Gokhale as an admirable leader and master
politician, describing him as ‘pure as crystal, gentle as a lamb,
brave as a lion and chivalrous to a fault and the most perfect man
in the political field’.

leaders, including Tilak, were convicted of incitement to

terrorism and deported to the Burmese territories. However, it
soon became clear that this was a hollow victory, cutting Congress
off from the public mood.

Muslim political developments

Political development in the Muslim community was muted, being
more focused on the educational and social activities of the
Aligarh movement.
In 1906, two modest, but significant events began the growth of
a political force which would eventually demand and achieve a
separate Muslim state.
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 39

Profile: Bal Gangadhar Tilak 1856–1920

1856 –
Born in Ratnagiri, western India
1876 –
Studied law
1881 –
Editor of the Kesari and Mahratta political journals
1884 –
Formed Deccan Education Society (DES)
1890 –
Resigned from the DES
1896 –
Started the Shivaji festival
1897 –
Convicted of sedition, sentenced to 18 months’ hard
labour
1908 – Deported to Burma for six years
1920 – Died

Tilak, like Gokhale, was born into a Brahmin family from western
India and drawn to journalism and politics by the opportunities
for passionate protest.
Tilak was inspired by the glorious, rebellious Marathas and
created new festivals to celebrate Hindu leaders of the past,
especially Shivaji. He regarded the British Raj as something to be
ejected from India. He objected to Christian missionary work and
took a conservative Hindu approach to social reform. He worked
hard on local projects to increase Indian education but always
considered political objectives more important than social
reforms.
Tilak appealed to the uneducated masses and favoured direct
action and boycotts. He took support from the Japanese (i.e.
Key date

Russia defeated Asian) victory over the Russian (i.e. European) Empire in 1905.
by Japan: 1905 Tilak was a forceful character and provocative. He emphasised
rights over concessions and made demands not requests. In 1906
he said:

If you forget your grievances by hearing words of sympathy, then the

cause is gone. You must make a permanent cause of grievance. Store
up the grievances till they are removed. Partition [of Bengal] grievance
will be the edifice for the regeneration of India.

After his deportation to Burma, however, Tilak was a changed

man. He rejected violent methods and Hindu victories. He helped
bring about the Lucknow Pact between Congress and the Muslim
League and supported the Khilafat movement.
Tilak’s extremist movement had been shut out of Congress by
Gokhale, but its methods and ambitions lived on in the
campaigns of Gandhi.

The Simla delegation

The fury of Hindus over the creation of a Muslim-majority
province in the partition of Bengal had convinced Muslims that,
as and when Indians were permitted to take part in government,
they would be overwhelmed by the general Hindu majority.
40 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Following Curzon’s ignominious departure, the new viceroy, Lord

Key dates
Simla delegation:
Minto, and a British Liberal government had indicated that October 1906
reforms would be considered. All-India Muslim
A delegation of some 70 Muslim leaders travelled to the British League formed: 1906
summer capital of Simla in October 1906 to present their plan for
separate electorates for Muslims in any future political reforms.
Lord Minto responded very sympathetically to the demand, seen
by some historians as trying to encourage a loyal Muslim political
strength to counterbalance the growth of Congress.

The All-India Muslim League

Cheered by Minto’s sympathetic response, the leader of the Simla
delegation, the Aga Khan, urged the creation of a Muslim
political organisation to keep up the momentum of the campaign.
As a result, in December 1906, the All-India Muslim League
was founded at Dacca, Bengal (later Dhaka, capital of
Bangladesh) by Nawab Viqar-ul-Mulq. It was for many years little
more than a debating society for its educated, middle-class
members. By 1916, however, it was sufficiently important to be
part of the agreement with Congress over future political
demands known as the Lucknow Pact (see page 47).

The Morley–Minto reforms

Motives
Key question
The new Liberal government in Britain took its responsibility for How did the Liberal
India seriously, but interpreted the duty of care in a less government try to
paternalistic and more trusting manner. The perception was that improve Indian
the gulf between the rulers and the ruled had widened and this government?
was not only bad in itself but politically negligent. The
government had been caught out by the sudden and widespread
agitation over the partition of Bengal and the support for
swadesh. The fear of mutiny lurked behind the sense of being out
of touch. The number of police informers was increased.
In 1908, the government established a Royal Commission on
Decentralisation to recommend improvements to the
administration of India. Politically and strategically, the wish was
to increase the contact with public opinion into the
administration. The commission’s report recommended modest
increases in the numbers of Indians on the various legislative
councils which formed the hierarchy of Indian administration.
The recommendations were championed by the secretary of
state in Britain, John Morley, and the viceroy in India, Lord
Minto, whose names supply the popular title for the resulting
reforms.
The Indian moderates had high hopes of Morley, who had
been a firm supporter of Gladstone’s plans for home rule, that is
self-government, in Ireland in the 1880s. Now 68 years old,
Morley was keen to leave a mark on political history. However, he
informed Gokhale, during the latter’s visit to Britain, that reform
would not lead to an Indian Parliament or self-government in the
foreseeable future. The reforms were intended to produce better
informed and more effective government by the British.
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 41

In addition, Morley and Minto made it clear to the moderates

that, while it was fully expected that the radicals would be
scornful of the modest scale of the change, if the moderates
expressed disappointment then the whole project would be
dropped.

The 1909 Indian Councils Act

Key date

Indian Councils Act: The Morley–Minto reforms became law in the Indian Councils
1909 Act 1909.
There were modest changes to the following legislative
councils:
• provincial
• central
• executive.
Most councils retained a majority of officials rather than elected
members. Moreover, the Indian members were to be elected
indirectly. That is, various organisations and social groups were
permitted to choose a specified number of representatives who
were recommended to the council in question. These
recommendations were never rejected, but neither was there a
principle of direct candidature and election to the councils in a
parliamentary style. The constituencies were very small, in some
cases as few as 20 people. The total number of votes was just
4000. The total elected membership of all the councils was 135
(up from the 39 permitted in the 1892 Indian Councils Act).

Key question The consequences

Did the reforms The regulations determining the respective organisations and
satisfy Indians? groups eligible to elect representatives were published a while
after the act. Now Congress, which had publicly supported the
reforms, protested while the Muslims, who had initially
complained, were satisfied.
This was because, for the first time, council seats were reserved
distinctively for Muslims, among several other social groups such
as universities. The stated purpose of the reform was to bring in a
cross-section of public opinion and this could only be guaranteed
by reserving numbers of seats for specified groups. It was,
however, a crucial precedent for all the constitutional reform to
follow including national partition at independence. There would
be no going back.
The councils remained advisory. They could initiate debates
(with certain subjects prohibited) and comment on proposals but
all their resulting recommendations could be ignored by the
executive. Some seized the opportunity: Gokhale used the annual
debate on the Indian budget to make wide-ranging speeches
about the state of Indian affairs. The Muslims participated whole-
heartedly and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the future leader of
Pakistan, became an elected representative with some optimism
for a while.
42 | Britain and India 1845–1947

In due course, however, the different defects of the measures

became apparent. For the Indians, it became clear that nothing
much had changed however well-intentioned the reform. By
1917, of the 168 resolutions made in the imperial legislative
council, 76 were rejected by the government, 68 were withdrawn
and just 24 were accepted.
For the British, it became clear that their own retention of
control of councils (through a majority of unelected officials)
placed the elected Indian members in the position of being able
to complain all the time without having to do anything about the
matters in question. The Indian groups became, in the words of

Key term
one historian, the official opposition to the British government. Official opposition
In the view of the former Viceroy Curzon, the increase in Indian The largest
intervention actually reduced the sense of care in the British élite. minority group in a
parliament.
Bengal and Delhi
Having granted Muslims separate electorates, the British felt able
to balance this with the reunification of Bengal. The partition had

Key date
created a Muslim-majority province. In 1911, the boundaries were Bengal reunited, Delhi
revised so that Assam and Bihar-and-Orissa became separate became British
provinces while Bengal itself was reunited. This placated Hindus, capital: 1911
but profoundly disappointed Muslims, although they were
pleased at the simultaneous transfer of the capital of British India
from Calcutta, the East India Company city, to Delhi, the historic
Mughal capital.

Summary diagram: Reorganisation

Viceroy Curzon

Simla delegation;
Partition of Bengal Congress split
Muslim League
Moderates Extremists

Morley–Minto reforms: Indian Councils Act 1909

Reunification of Bengal; Delhi becomes capital

2 | Reconciliation in Conflict
The Great War
Key date

For the most part, the Indian population supported Britain in the Outbreak of the Great
war. Thousands of individuals volunteered for military service and War (later called the
politicians pledged their loyalty. But it was clear that Britain First World War): 1914
would need to reward this support and sacrifice with
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 43

constitutional progress. Within months of the start of the war,

Prime Minister Lord Asquith conceded that:

henceforth Indian questions would have to be approached from a

new angle of vision.

In a short space of time, Indian public opinion also gained a

new perspective on the British Empire and Europeans in general.
This was partly the result of distant observation of the strategic
situation and partly the result of reports of individual
experiences.

Key question The strategic situation

How did the war In the first place, it became apparent that Britain was no longer
change Indian views the supreme global empire. Although not fighting for its
of Britain? existence, it was certainly contesting with equally powerful forces
and was not invincible. Britain’s alliance with Russia (and France)
meant that a wartime threat to India from the north was
inconceivable. However, in the event of Britain’s defeat, then
Russia might march in. This concentrated Indian minds on
supporting the British war effort.
On the other hand, even in the event of victory, the war would
be likely to have weakened Britain’s power, creating much more
favourable conditions for the nationalist movement.
It was, of course, not immediately obvious that the war would
be a world war (nor indeed just the first). It involved nations with
global empires but the predominant theatre of war was Europe
and the Western Front across Belgium and France in particular.
Accordingly, Indian regiments were transported to Europe and
then fought in the horrifying conditions of the trenches. The
effect of their experiences on Indian public opinion was
significant.

Military experiences
The moral high ground of the white man’s burden turned into
the blood-soaked swamp of trench warfare. To the Indians, the
carnage of the Great War proved that the Europeans were no
better and perhaps worse than those they ruled. Indeed, the
fighting between white European neighbours (and the family
kinship of the Kaiser, the Tsar and the King-Emperor of Britain)
could be described in the same terms as ‘communal’ fighting
between Indian Hindus and Muslims.
This observation of European barbarity was aggravated by the
sheer incompetence of the major campaign in which Indian
Key term

Mesopotamia troops were involved: Mesopotamia. The troops were shockingly

The Middle East, under-equipped and badly led. Indian industry was not geared to
especially now Iraq, production of weapons or vehicles and the British could not
from the Greek for afford to divert supplies from the European war. The campaign
‘between rivers’ (the limped on and acquired the nickname the ‘Mess-Pot’. Thousands
Tigris and of Indian troops were forced to surrender in the siege of Kut, but
Euphrates in Iraq). eventually the British forces prevailed with the capture of
Baghdad.
44 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Agitation
The opening of hostilities had also seen the open expression of
Key question
How did political
loyalty to the British Empire from politicians and the people. The protest re-emerge?
British declared at first that all hopes and plans for further
nationalist progress should be set aside for as long as the war
lasted. However, although support remained strong, there were
reminders that political goals had not been forgotten. Indeed, the
war presented new opportunities.

The Ghadr movement

Most disturbing for the British were a number of mutinies.
There were two early mutinies of Pathans in the winter of
1914–15 apparently caused by fear that they would be led by
Muslim officers. Indian troops in Singapore had learned from
reports and personal letters about the death toll at the Battle of
the Somme (1916). A rumour that they were to embark for
France led to a rampage and the killing of European civilians,
including women. One woman wrote later that they thought the
horrors of the mutiny were about to be repeated. In fact, order
was quickly established and 37 ringleaders were publicly
executed.
The most politically significant mutiny never actually took
place. In early 1914, a Japanese steamer, the Komagata Maru, was
commissioned by more than 300 Sikhs working in Malaya to take
them to Canada. The Canadians refused entry despite the voyage
complying with new anti-Asian immigration laws. After months in
harbour, the Komagata Maru set sail for Calcutta.
By the time it arrived, in September 1914, war had broken out
and suspicions were high. It was known that the Canadian coastal
province of British Columbia was home to a growing community

Key term
of anti-British Indians. The movement gave its name – Ghadr – to Ghadr
a newspaper widely distributed in North America and the East Translates as
which had the sub-title ‘enemy of the British government’. mutiny.
The Sikhs found troops waiting to escort them to a holding
camp. Some made a break for the city and 22 were shot. The rest
were rounded up and transported across India. The incident
inflamed anti-British feeling in the Punjab, still more so when an
official inquiry blamed the immigrant Sikhs.
Subsequently, British secret police paid close attention to
politics in the Punjab. Inside information led to the break-up of a
planned uprising in 1915. Five thousand Ghadrites were arrested,
200 jailed or transported abroad and 46 were hanged. The relief
and satisfaction of the British was haunted by the realisation that
the traditional loyalty of the Punjab (compared with the
continuous agitation of Bengal) could no longer be counted on.
Just four years later, this anxiety would lead to the worst atrocity
of British rule in India.
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 45

Home rule leagues

Origins
Key date

Formation of home In 1916 two new political organisations were launched. Both had
rule leagues: 1916 the aim of campaigning for home rule for India. One was led by
the ejected Congress radical Tilak (see page 39); the other by a
forceful 69-year-old British woman called Mrs Annie Besant.
The home rule leagues were based closely on the campaigns for
home rule in Ireland in the late nineteenth century. An Irish
parliamentary party had been formed to work democratically for
self-government in Ireland while remaining part of the British
Empire. It took four attempts between 1886 and 1914 for an Irish
Home Rule Bill to become law and even then it was suspended
because of the outbreak of war. However, its ultimate
implementation was inevitable.
In the Indian context, this struggle showed that home rule was
a challenging but realistic objective. It could not be dismissed as
too easy. Although Congress had discussed home rule since 1905,
the control of the moderates had ensured that it never became a
campaign. But Congress had lost momentum and influence since
the 1907 split. Besant tried at first to work with Congress and revive
its fortunes, but she soon realised that Congress was only interested
in controlling and suppressing the home rule movement.

Home rule
Key question Home rule was not revolutionary. Indeed the term was adopted,
Why did home rule
leagues have appeal? in the opinion of one nationalist, N.C. Kelkar, because it was:

familiar to the English ear and saved them from all the imaginary
terrors which the word swaraj was likely to conjure up in their minds.

Home rule would involve only management of internal Indian

affairs. Defence and foreign policy would remain matters for the
British government. Besant stated that it meant ‘freedom without
separation’; Tilak emphasised that it sought ‘reform of the system
of administration and not the overthrow of government’. In a
more religious comparison, he spoke of the Indian people
maintaining faith in the divine Emperor while seeking a new set
of priests.
Above all, the First World War moderated attitudes. There was
an overriding loyalty to the British even though patriotic pride in
the Indian contribution to the war effort simultaneously boosted
nationalism. Tilak himself stated in 1917:

If you want Home Rule be prepared to defend your Home … You

cannot reasonably say that the ruling will be done by you and the
fighting for you.

Success
Tilak’s Home Rule League for India rapidly gained 32,000
members despite being focused on just the two regions of
Maharashtra and Karnataka. Besant’s All-India Home Rule
League was smaller and grew more slowly but its network of
46 | Britain and India 1845–1947

committees covered most of the rest of India. The two were

mutually supportive: Tilak and Besant joined each other’s
organisations. They toured the country giving public lectures and
publishing pamphlets. They successfully generated agitation
amongst the public in a way that Congress had never really tried.

Responses
Congress maintained its moderate reluctance to demand
something as radical as home rule even though people joined
home rule leagues in great numbers (including two future
national leaders, Nehru and Jinnah). Other Indian groups were
also resistant, especially Muslims and lower-caste Hindu groups
who thought self-government would entrench Brahmin Hindu
dominance. They viewed the British as more protective of their
interests.
The British regarded the home rule leagues with great concern.
They had finally calmed the agitation caused by the partition of
Bengal by reuniting it in 1911 and liked the tame approach of the
moderate-controlled Congress. One official reported:

Moderate leaders can command no support among the vocal

classes who are being led at the heels of Tilak and Besant.

Orders were given for swift arrest of home rule campaigners

whenever possible. Students were forbidden from holding
meetings at which home rule might be discussed. Tilak was
arrested on charges of sedition and required to put up

Key terms
40,000 rupees as surety of good behaviour. Besant was actually Rupee
interned. The currency of
These moves were completely counter-productive. Congress India.
moderates now swung their support over to home rule
Surety
campaigns. The viceroy wrote to the secretary of state:
A deposit lost in the
event of breaking
Mrs Besant, Tilak and the others are fomenting with great vigour
the law.
the agitation for immediate home rule and in the absence of any
definite announcement by the government of India as to their policy Interned
in the matter, it is attracting many of those who hitherto have held Imprisoned without
less advanced views. trial.

Consequences
Key question
The British government realised the need to respond at least with Why did home rule
words if not actions. On 20 August 1917, it issued a declaration leagues fail?
which appeared to promise eventual self-government. The
Key date

declaration, known in British historiography as the Montagu The Montagu

Declaration after the secretary of state who made it, had the Declaration:
desired effect of taking the wind out of the home rule sails 20 August 1917
without making definite commitments.
When Besant was freed, she was triumphantly elected President
of Congress in December 1917. There were great hopes for the
reunification and revival of Congress. However, she proved an
inconsistent and ineffective leader of Congress. She was crucially
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 47

reluctant to support any kind of boycott or resistance campaigns.

Tilak still refrained from rejoining Congress.
The home rule movement quickly lost momentum and, strictly
speaking, it failed to achieve its objectives. However, it had
created the first truly national mass campaign. Moreover, its
failure actually left an unsatisfied willingness among the general
population for more direct action. This is widely believed to have
prepared the way for the campaigns of Gandhi from the 1920s
onwards.

The Lucknow Pact

Key date

Lucknow Pact: At the Congress meeting of December 1916 in Lucknow, a

December 1916 historic agreement was reached between the predominantly
Hindu Congress and the All-India Muslim League. The so-called
Lucknow Pact covered not only a broad statement of political
objective but also the precise details of future electorates, once
Key term

Pact India was self-governing. The sense of occasion was further

An agreement enhanced by the re-integration of the radical wing of the
between political Congress Party at the same session.
allies. On the Congress side, President A.C. Mazumdar reflected on:

nearly ten years of painful separation and wandering through the

wilderness of misunderstandings and the mazes of unpleasant
controversies … There are occasional differences even in the best
regulated families.

On the Muslim side, there was resentment against the British

over:
• the 1911 reversal of the partition of Bengal which had
originally been of benefit to Muslim politicians; and
• the declaration of war against Turkey, home of the Ottoman
Sultan, the head of the international Muslim community.
In 1915, Congress and the Muslim League had held concurrent
sessions in Bombay and both had declared self-government as
their political objective. During 1916, two committees had worked
together to prepare the details of a scheme for how such self-
government would work. Concurrent sessions were held again in
Lucknow and the scheme was accepted by the two political
groups. It was not, of course, in their power to bring it about.

Table 2.1: Muslim proportions of provincial populations and planned

seats in provincial councils as part of Lucknow Pact

Province Muslim population (%) Planned seats (%)

Punjab Over 50 50
Bengal Over 50 40
United Provinces 14 30
Bihar 13 25
Central Provinces 4
Madras 7 } 15
Bombay 20 33.3
48 | Britain and India 1845–1947

The heart of the scheme was the set of proportions of seats in the
provincial legislative councils reserved for Muslims (Table 2.1).
This took forward the precedent created by the Morley–Minto
reforms of separate communal elections for quotas of seats in the
councils. What was remarkable was the extent to which Congress
agreed to weighting the representation above the proportion of
the actual population in many provinces.
Further communal agreements in the plan included:
• No Muslim would contest a seat outside the reserved quota.
• No bill or clause would proceed if 75 per cent of the affected
community opposed it.
• The central Legislative Council would increase to 150 members
of whom 80 per cent would be elected and one-third of them
would be Muslim in the proportions set out for the provinces,
thus giving Muslims additional weightage at both provincial
and central levels.
There were more general agreements such as:
• Provincial councillors would serve for five years.
• Councils would have powers over revenue collection, loans and
expenditure.
• Indians would form at least half the members of the Executive
Council.
• The judiciary would be independent of the executive, the
government of India independent of the secretary of state, and
the India Council in Britain would be abolished.
• Defence, foreign affairs and diplomacy would remain British
responsibilities.
The Muslim League leader Jinnah stated that ‘cooperation in the
cause of the motherland should be our guiding principle’. To the
British, it did indeed seem that the nationalist movement was
reuniting and gaining strength.

The Montagu declaration Key question

By 1917, it was clear to the British that there was no benefit in How did the British
postponing political concessions until after the war. respond to Indian
Accordingly, Edwin Montagu, secretary of state for India, unity?
announced a startling new constitutional objective in the House
of Commons on 20 August:

The increasing association of Indians in every branch of the

administration and the gradual development of self-governing
institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible
government in India as part of the British Empire.

The first part of the declaration was no more than a restatement

of the Proclamation of Victoria some 50 years earlier. Moreover,
the language of ‘with a view to the progressive realisation’ and ‘as
part of the British Empire’, carried echoes of hoping this would
all take a long time. However, the promise of ‘self-governing
institutions’ was a clear and significant concession that an Indian
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 49

parliament, controlling the Indian administration, would be

created.
Montagu promptly set off on a massive tour of India to consult
politicians and public opinion. His findings were published in the
1918 Montagu–Chelmsford report which would become the basis
for the 1919 legislation.
However, by the time the reforms became law, events at
Amritsar in the Punjab would have sealed the fate of the British
Empire in India.

Summary diagram: Reconciliation in conflict

First World War: vulnerability; barbarism; incompetence

Agitation – Ghadr

Home rule leagues

Besant Tilak

Lucknow Pact

Muslim League Congress

Montagu
Declaration

3 | The Amritsar Massacre

Political consequences of the First World War
The British had been drawn into the Mesopotamian campaign by
French and Russian desires to break up the Ottoman Empire.
There was great British reluctance to go to war against this Islamic
empire because of the possible reaction within India in particular.
It was hoped in India, among the British élite as much as the
Indian population, that the Mesopotamian region would become
a British-controlled buffer zone to protect the western approach
to India. However, further political factors came into play.
Irregular Arab forces (some led by Lawrence of Arabia) had
scored minor, but spectacular successes against Ottoman Turkish
forces and supply lines. The British had promised them some
form of independence once the Ottoman Empire was broken up.
One such consequence was the creation of an Arab state of Iraq.
The British in India were dismayed by this whole-hearted support
50 | Britain and India 1845–1947

for nationalist demands. How could similar demands within India

be denied?
As a recognition of its sacrifice, but also perhaps in the new
mood of nation-building, India was permitted its own
representatives at the Imperial War Conference of 1917. This
gave it a status comparable to the self-governing Dominions of
the British Empire. The conference was called to discuss the
shape of the eventual political settlement after the expected
victory of the Allied powers. When victory was finally achieved,
India also took part in the formal peace-treaty negotiations.

Insecurity and repression Key question

The Allies had won the war, but the British felt far from secure. Why did the end of
First, the arrival of US forces on the Western Front from 1917 the war not boost
foreshadowed the eclipse of the British Empire by the Americans British confidence?
during the twentieth century. President Woodrow Wilson felt
sufficiently supreme to declare his so-called Fourteen Points of
international policy. These included the right of peoples to
independent nationhood. The constant US pressure to apply this
principle to the British Empire would have major significance for
the British in India.

Key terms
Second, the Russian Revolution in 1917 had resulted in a Bolshevik
Bolshevik government which had executed the entire imperial A member of the
family (the Tsar being cousin of the British King-Emperor and majority, thus the
the Kaiser). They had also withdrawn from the war as an political group that
imperialist conflict nearly causing defeat for the Allies. The emerged as leader
European powers feared the spread of Bolshevism. British of the revolution.
soldiers who had expected to return home in peacetime found
Pandemic
themselves fighting inside Russia against a new Red Army in
Global epidemic.
the vain hope of killing off the Bolshevik regime. At home, the
police formed a Special Branch to spy and report on suspicious
political activity. In due course, Special Branch officers in End of the First World Key dates
Britain and India would be reporting on Indian independence War: 1918
campaigners. US President Wilson’s
Finally, the world was devastated by a flu pandemic which Fourteen Points: 1918
took more lives in the winter of 1918–19 than the four years of Rowlatt Act: 1919
the war.

The Rowlatt Act

Key question
In this insecure state of affairs the British were not inclined to How did the British
relax their guard in India, despite or perhaps because of the maintain
commitment given in the Montagu declaration. The British suppression?
government in India had passed the Defence of India Act (1915)
permitting them to close down newspapers suspected of anti-
British attitudes for the duration of the war.
Indians had expected that with the end of the war these laws
would become inactive, if not explicitly repealed. In fact, the
British quickly moved to renew their powers by passing the
Anarchical and Revolutionary Crimes Act (1919), now more
commonly termed the Rowlatt Act, after its creator.
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 51

The Act enabled the powers of the Defence of India Act to be

invoked if it was judged anarchic conditions were developing.
These powers included unlimited detention without trial, trial
without jury and the use of evidence illegal in peacetime. A wide
range of activities constituted anarchic behaviour. For example, it
was now an offence punishable by two years’ imprisonment to
Key terms

Seditious possess a copy of a seditious newspaper.

Encouraging All 22 Indian members of the Imperial Legislative Council had
overthrow of a opposed the bill, but the majority of appointed officials ensured
government. that it was passed.
Jinnah resigned from the Council stating that the Act
Hartal
‘ruthlessly trampled upon the principles for which Great Britain
Strike action, refusal
avowedly fought the war’. Gandhi declared it a betrayal of
to work.
wartime support by Indians and declared a national hartal on
6 April 1919, which was widely supported and reinforced the
alarming unity of Hindu and Muslim campaigners. The hartal
turned to widespread violence, not least in the cities of the
Punjab, unleashing the terrible events at Amritsar in 1919.
The Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore would later describe the
Amritsar Massacre as ‘the monstrous progeny of a monstrous war’.

An artist’s impression of the Amritsar Massacre. What weapons are shown? To what extent are
the Indians presented as a threat?
52 | Britain and India 1845–1947

The Amritsar Massacre

Amritsar is the holy city of the Sikhs at the centre of the Punjab.
Punjabis had played a major role in the war, but also in the Ghadr
movement. There was a strong mood of resentment at the
continued repression in the form of the Rowlatt Act. On the
British side, there was a renewed fear of uprising and mutiny.

The Jallianwala Bagh meeting

Congress declared another hartal for 8 April which was widely
supported, but led to violent attacks on people and buildings. On
10 April a mob killed five Englishmen and left an Englishwoman
for dead. The Punjab provincial government requested military
assistance and control.
Troops under the command of General Dyer arrived in
Amritsar on the evening of 11 April. Dyer banned all public
meetings and arrested local politicians. Dyer was determined not
to repeat the accepted error of the 1857 mutiny by letting events
get out of control. As he explained later, he was even more
determined to teach the Punjabis a lesson.
However, the ban was defied by the call for a public meeting on

Key date
13 April in the Jallianwala Bagh. This was an open space within Amritsar Massacre:
the town that had originally been a set of gardens, but was now 13 April 1919
enclosed on all sides by the backs of buildings and a high wall.
Between 10,000 and 20,000 Punjabis were crammed into the
garden when Dyer arrived with Indian troops. He also had an
armoured car with a machine gun on top. It is a small mercy that
this was unable to enter the garden because the alleyway was too
small.
Dyer’s troops ran in, took up line position and, without
warning, started firing into the crowd. There were only three or
four other, very narrow, exits. Panic ensued and people were
crushed together. Dyer interpreted this as the gathering of a
charge and directed fire into the thickest groups. His troops used
over 1600 bullets and only stopped firing because the
ammunition ran out. Dyer later confirmed that had there been
more ammunition he would have continued the onslaught. It is
accepted that 379 people were killed within minutes. The 1200
wounded were left to fend for themselves.
Key term

In the days that followed, Dyer imposed martial law and Martial law
humiliating punishments that drew international criticism. Public Army imposes its
floggings were held of Indians suspected, but not convicted, of own rules, suspends
violence. In the street where an Englishwoman had been attacked, civil courts and
Indians were forced to crawl along the ground. justice.

The Hunter Inquiry

Key question
British and worldwide concern eventually forced the government How did Dyer justify
to hold an inquiry. In various statements to the Hunter Inquiry himself?
committee and elsewhere, Dyer made it abundantly clear that:

It was no longer a question of merely dispersing the crowd but one

of producing a sufficient moral effect, from a military point of view,
not only on those who were present, but more especially
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 53

throughout the Panjab. There could be no question of undue

severity.

Dyer maintained that the situation was on the verge of complete

mob challenge to the British authority in India and a threat to
the lives of Europeans. In this view, he was clearly supported by
British public opinion, to the lasting disgust of Indians. The
House of Lords passed a vote of thanks for his actions and a
public subscription raised thousands of pounds in reward.
The inquiry committee was split along ethnic lines. The
Key term

Censure majority report held Dyer responsible but only censured him.
A formal political The minority report of the three Indian members of the inquiry
reprimand. blamed martial law for the agitation and compared Dyer’s actions
to the brutality of the Germans during the war.
Even to the majority, it was inexcusable that Dyer did not
attempt to prevent the meeting coming together and that he
agreed that he could have dispersed the crowd without firing but
would have ‘looked a fool’.
Dyer’s weak excuses, on top of his declared aim of terrorising
Key question the entire Punjab, have led some nationalist writers to claim that
Why did the Amritsar
Massacre weaken the the massacre was planned. There is no evidence of this, but if true
British? it was certainly a terrible misjudgement. For the moral authority

Contemporary
cartoon after Amritsar.
How is British
authority
characterised? How
does the action of the
colonial victims recall
punishments after the
Amritsar Massacre?
54 | Britain and India 1845–1947

of the British was forever broken. Never again could the British
claim to be ruling India with the aim of developing civilised
public values or even that they governed by the rule of law.
Gandhi declared that: ‘cooperation in any shape or form with
this satanic government is sinful’. The freedom struggle was
reinvigorated. Dyer believed his actions to have been decisive.
They were. In the words of a later historian, Amritsar was the
massacre which destroyed the Raj.

Summary diagram: The Amritsar Massacre

Russian Revolution
Postwar nations
Wilson’s Fourteen Points

Defence of India Act

Rowlatt Act Hartals

Amritsar Massacre: Jallianwala Bagh

Hunter Inquiry

4 | The Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms

Government of India Act 1919 Key question
In December 1919, the Government of India Act was passed. As What did the
this was based on the Montagu–Chelmsford Report of 1918, it Government of India
was more commonly known as the Montagu–Chelmsford reforms Act change?
(or even Mont–ford reforms). The provisions of the Act were
Key date

inaugurated in 1921. Government of India

In the British view, this showed that the government was clearly Act: December 1919
following through the promise of the 1917 Montagu Declaration.
To Indians, however, the four years from declaration to
implementation contrasted significantly with the weeks taken to
pass the repressive Rowlatt Act. Moreover, coming just eight
months after the Amritsar Massacre, there was little feeling of
success let alone gratitude.
The Act contained three significant features:
• self-government in the future
• changes to the composition of councils and the electorate
• division of governmental responsibilities.
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 55

Self-government
The Act confirmed the promise of eventual self-government of
India by an Indian Parliament. It promised a review in ten years
time of the success of the actual changes in the Act. Then a
decision about the next move to dominion status might be taken.
It made no reference to independence from Britain at any time.

Councils and electorates

The most significant feature in this area was the elimination of
the majorities of appointed officials in most legislative councils.
For the first time, members elected by Indians would be in the
majority.
At the very top, the Imperial Executive Council was increased
to six members, plus the viceroy and the commander-in-chief, of
whom three would be (appointed) Indians.
The two houses of the central legislature comprised the (lower)
legislative assembly in which 106 members would be elected and
40 nominated, and the (higher) council of state would have 61
members (elected by the wealthiest individuals).
The provincial legislative councils were expanded so that 70%
of members were elected. All provinces now had full governors
and executive councils.
Key terms

Franchise With regard to the electorate, the national franchise was

The conditions extended according to levels of property tax, in other words, wealth
making people of males. Out of a population of some 150 million people, five
eligible to vote. million were able to vote for provincial councils, one million for
the Legislative Assembly and just 17,000 for the Council of State.
Dyarchy
Furthermore, the principle of separate candidates and
Obscure term from
electorates was firmly embedded. As well as general electorates, in
classical Greek
which all those enfranchised could vote, there were ‘reserved’
meaning two-part
elections of Muslim, Sikh and Christian members by their own
power.
electorates (subject still to the property qualification). There were
Excise also special electorates for universities (as in Britain until 1950),
A tax on goods landholders and business interests.
made inside the
country. Dyarchy
The new division of responsibilities within the administration of
Federal
India took place at two levels – dyarchy. In the first place,
Government with
responsibility for a number of matters was transferred from the
considerable
central Indian government to provincial administrations. The
regional powers.
provinces became responsible for collecting land tax, excise duty
and revenue from stamps. The provinces were made responsible
for their irrigation works. The central government retained
responsibility for income tax, customs duties, salt tax, postal
communications and railways, as well as defence and foreign
affairs. This division was regarded as a pragmatic delegation
rather than a concession of potential federal organisation.
At the level of provincial administration, there was perhaps an
even more significant division. Matters were deemed to be either
‘reserved’ or ‘transferred’. Reserved matters – characterised as
law, order and revenue – would remain the responsibility of the
governor’s executive council. Transferred matters – characterised
56 | Britain and India 1845–1947

as developmental and nation-building – would become the

responsibility of the elected legislative council to which provincial
ministers would be accountable. For the first time, Indian
politicians would hold ministerial power subject to oversight by
predominantly Indian councils (see Figure 2.1).

Reserved matters Transferred matters

(appointed executive council) (elected legislative council)
• Land revenue • Local self-government (district councils)
• Law and justice • Education
• Police • Health
• Irrigation • Works
• Labour • Agriculture and cooperatives

Figure 2.1: Provincial government

Reactions
With hindsight, the year 1919 saw the temporary end of anarchic
terrorist attacks and the end of military repression. However, it
also marked the end of hope for moderate, gradual constitutional
change.
Indian nationalist reaction to the 1919 Act was lukewarm. The
provisions of the Act were complex and confusing. In fact, an
inquiry would be launched in 1924–5 to review the breakdown of
the political system created. The Act did not seem worth the
prolonged wait during which expectations had built up. There
was no point in not taking up the opportunities offered by the
Act, but there was a readiness to demand much more. The
nationalist movement was about to be transformed from a small
political élite pressing for concessions to a genuinely mass protest
movement with demands for complete independence.

Summary diagram: Montagu–Chelmsford reforms

Montagu–Chelmsford reforms
Government of India Act 1919

Council members

Elected majorities Extended franchise Separate electorates

Dyarchy

Central responsibilities Provincial responsibilities

Reserved Transferred
matters matters

Self-government: dominion status

 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 57

Study Guide: AS Question

In the style of Edexcel

Source 1
From: a letter written by Motilal Nehru in 1909 to his son,
Jawaharlal, commenting on the proposed Morley-Minto reforms.
Motilal Nehru was an important member of Congress.
These are not reforms, but a means of destroying the influence
of the Indian educated classes in national politics.

Source 2
From: Denis Judd, Empire, published in 1996.
The 1909 Indian Councils Act modestly extended the franchise,
but quite substantially increased the numbers of elected and
nominated Indians on the provincial and central legislative
councils of the Raj. The British, by holding out the prospect of
progress towards responsible government, were undoubtedly
hoping to contain and defuse the forces of Indian nationalism.
Thus the extension of democratic institutions was used as a
means of shoring up the fundamentally autocratic British Raj.

Source 3
From: Bipan Chandra, India’s Struggle for Independence,
published in 1988.
The real purpose of the Morley–Minto reforms was to divide the
nationalist ranks and to check the growing unity among Indians.
The reforms introduced a system of separate electorates under
which Muslims could only vote for Muslim candidates in
constituencies especially reserved for them. This was done to
encourage the notion that the interests of Hindus and Muslims
were separate and not common.

Use Sources 1, 2 and 3 and your own knowledge.

Do you agree with the view that the real purpose of the
Morley–Minto reforms was to ‘divide the nationalist ranks’?
Explain your answer, using Sources 1, 2 and 3 and your own
knowledge. (40 marks)
58 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Exam tips
The cross-references are intended to take you straight to the material that will help you to
answer the question.

This is an example of a (b) question, worth two-thirds of the marks for the unit. You should
expect to write a substantial answer to this question – leaving yourself about 35–40 minutes
to write up your answer after you have analysed the sources and planned a response.
Examiners will award you a maximum of 16 marks for making use of the provided sources
and 24 marks for deploying your own knowledge. You must identify points raised by the
sources, and then use your own knowledge to develop those further and to introduce new
and relevant points which the sources do not contain. But you should start your plan with the
sources to ensure that you don’t get so carried away with planning and writing a standard
essay answer that you forget to use the sources properly. For the highest marks, you should
develop techniques which enable you to use your own knowledge in combination with
material from the sources – integrating the two.
Try working with a set of columns which allows you to:

• sort your material into that which agrees with the claim in the question and that which
counters it
• plan in an integrated way where your own knowledge can extend a point found in the
sources.
Some examples are given below.

AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE

(evidence from (evidence from (evidence from (evidence from own
sources) own knowledge) sources) knowledge)
Source 3: The system
of separate elections
was introduced to
encourage the notion
that the interests of
Hindus and Muslims
were not common
Source 2: The Act
extended the
democratic institutions
within India,
substantially increasing
the number of elected
and nominated Indians
on provincial and
central legislative
councils. Its purpose
was to make
concessions in order to
‘contain and defuse
the forces of
nationalism’
 Discontent to Outrage 1901–19 | 59

AGREE AGREE DISAGREE DISAGREE

(evidence from (evidence from (evidence from (evidence from own
sources) own knowledge) sources) knowledge)
The reforms aimed to
produce better-
informed and more
effective government
by the British
(page 40)

Additional points are given below. Try slotting these remaining points into a plan. You will
need to decide into which column they should go and how they should be grouped. Do some
of them add to points in the plan above, or are they new points?
Can evidence to support them be found in the sources, from the sources with additional
material from your own knowledge, or do they come entirely from your additional knowledge
gained from Chapter 2?

• The reforms aimed to reduce the nationalist influence (Sources 2 and 3).
• The reforms were not planned to lead to an Indian parliament or self-government in the
foreseeable future (page 40 and Source 2).
• The partition of Bengal had aroused Hindu fury and led to Muslim fears of Hindu political
dominance if Indians were allowed self-government (page 39).
• Lord Minto was sympathetic to the demands of the Simla delegation for separate Muslim
electorates (page 40).
• Some historians see Minto’s aims as trying to encourage a loyal Muslim political strength to
counterbalance the growth of Congress (page 40).
• The British government was alarmed by agitation over the partition of Bengal and support
for swadesh (page 40) and wished to increase the contact between the administration of
government in India and public opinion in India.
• The purpose of the reforms was to bring in a cross-section of public opinion and this could
only be done by reserving numbers of seats for specified groups (page 41 and Source 1).

Now that you have sorted and grouped the relevant points, what is your decision? What do
you see as the real purpose of the Morley–Minto reforms?
3
POINTS TO CONSIDER
Campaigns and
Concession 1919–39

For India, the period between the two world wars is

stamped with the personality of Mahatma Gandhi. He
brought a new style to Indian nationalism involving the mass
of the people rather than an educated élite. He adopted the
tactics of peaceful protest and added a spiritual dimension
which the British found difficult to deal with. They found
their preference for meetings and conferences out of touch,
their legislation was too little too late and the punishment of
imprisonment was turned into a badge of honour. At the
end of the period, Congress triumphed in the first real
elections in India, but their high-handed treatment of Muslim
politicians encouraged the growth of separatist politics
initiated and exploited by the British.
This chapter examines in more detail:
• Gandhi’s principles, campaigns of civil disobedience and
the British responses
• Demands for and resistance to dominion status
• Major political concession in the Government of India Act
1935
• Elections and relations between Congress and the
Muslims

Key dates
1919–21 Non-cooperation campaigns
1922 February 6 End of non-cooperation
1928 Simon Commission in India
August Nehru Report presented
all-parties conference
1929 Dominion Declaration by British
government
1930 March 12 Start of the Salt March
November 12 First round table conference
1931 March 5 Gandhi–Irwin Pact
September 7 Second round table conference
1932 August 4 British government’s communal
award
1933–4 Individual civil disobedience
1935 August 2 Government of India Act
1937 Indian general election
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 61

1 | Gandhi and Non-cooperation

Introduction
Key question Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was propelled to national stature
Why did Gandhi
become a national by the reaction to the Rowlatt Act and the Amritsar Massacre and
figure? by capturing popular imagination through his style of
campaigning. Before then Gandhi was a promising but no longer
youthful politician in the Congress Party which itself remained a
middle-class organisation for proposing constitutional change.
Within a few years, Gandhi’s campaigns had galvanised public
opinion in India and Britain and had succeeded in bringing
support to Congress from the masses of India.
Gandhi’s methods were a powerful combination of spiritual
strength, political skill and sheer theatricality. He was one of the
great figures of the twentieth century and will be forever
associated with the concepts of non-violent protest and civil
disobedience. He was not the first to develop or practise this
approach, but his various campaigns drew international attention
because of the complex problems they caused the British. They
were often unsuccessful in their precise objectives but there is
agreement that, overall, Gandhi’s genius was to recognise that the
British Empire could be defeated by mass peaceful passive
confrontation. His campaigns exposed the fact the Empire
survived because of Indian support and if that was withdrawn, it
could not continue.
Key date

Non-cooperation Gandhi led five national campaigns of civil disobedience, in

campaigns: 1919–21 addition to more personal interventions such as fasts. The
campaigns are now known as:
• 1919 non-cooperation movement
• 1921 non-cooperation movement
• 1930 Salt March and civil disobedience campaign
• 1932 civil disobedience campaign
• 1942 Quit India movement.

Gandhian principles
The principles which guided Gandhi’s campaigning, and their
effect on political actions, require preliminary explanation.

Satyagraha
Key term

Satyagraha Satyagraha is the root concept which Gandhi developed through

Literal meaning is his legal campaigning work for Indians in South Africa. He
truth-force or soul- described it as ‘not predominantly civil disobedience but a quiet
force. and irresistible pursuit of truth.’
Satyagraha requires individual campaigners to commit their
emotional and spiritual conviction to the struggle for truth and
overall justice. This involves the rejection of dishonourable
motives such as campaigning for the advantage of one religious
community over another. It also involves a generally ascetic
lifestyle and a willingness to suffer for the cause, either by placing
oneself in the path of physical violence or by engaging voluntarily
62 | Britain and India 1845–1947

in painful symbolic actions such as hunger strikes. Either of these

might lead to death.
Satyagraha is itself developed out of Hindu philosophy of
dharma: the need to take right action in the world. The word
emphasises force rather than passivity.

Ahimsa

Key terms
Ahimsa develops a practical and political method out of Ahimsa
satyagraha. Literal meaning is
In a political campaign for independence, peace and justice, it non-violence.
is unacceptable to use provocative or retaliatory violence.
Khadi
Accordingly, the campaign methods used involve inaction,
Home-spun cloth or
withdrawal of cooperation, resignations, hartals, boycotts or even
clothing.
just silence. In the face of physical force, campaigners must
submit with dignity, relying on the moral effect of their suffering Dhoti
to provoke guilt in the attacker and a crisis of conscience and Loin cloth.
determination.
Cottage industry
Ahimsa shows Gandhi’s willingness to adapt ideas from other
Pre-factory
religions since it clearly relates to the Christian concepts of loving
organisation of
one’s enemies and turning the other cheek.
home weaving or
workshops, for
Swadesh
example.
Swadesh pre-dates Gandhi’s political prominence. Swadesh
emerged as a response to the 1905 partition of Bengal in a
commitment to abstain from the purchase of British goods.
It is entirely Gandhian in its dignified avoidance of a
particular action, even at personal cost or discomfort. Gandhi,
however, took it further. He urged supporters, and required his
close followers, to learn how to spin cloth and to spend an hour
a day spinning in order to increase personal and national
economic self-reliance. Clothes made of home-spun cloth, khadi,
became a sign of political commitment especially at high-level
negotiations. From 1921, Gandhi himself chose to wear the
peasant dhoti.
Swadesh is part of Gandhi’s vision of a return to a medieval
economic system of cottage industry.

Swaraj
Gandhi had written a book while in South Africa entitled Hind
Swaraj (Indian Self-rule). He would declare swaraj as a political
goal in his first campaigns and the Swaraj Party was formed in
1923.

The 1919 non-cooperation movement

Gandhi’s first interventions in India were in two industrial
disputes in Bihar and in Gujarat. The Bihar campaign on behalf
of workers in the indigo trade was a notable success.
In 1919, Gandhi gained a narrow majority in Congress for a
national campaign of protest about the Rowlatt Act and the
Amritsar Massacre. The movement swelled into a loosely
organised protest movement, the first non-cooperation
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 63

Profile: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi; later

Mahatma (‘Great Soul’) Gandhi 1869–1948
1869 –
Born in Porbander, western India
1888 –
Became a law student in London
1893 –
Practised as a lawyer in South Africa
1915 –
Received the Kaiser-i-Hind war medal for ambulance
work
1915 – Returned to India
1919–48 – Active in political campaigning
1948 – Assassinated

Mohandas Gandhi has been described by historian Patrick French

as: ‘The most famous Indian since the Buddha and the most
influential political campaigner of the twentieth century.’
Gandhi’s writings and others about him amount to an estimated
30 million words.
Gandhi was born, the youngest of six, into the Bania caste in
the Gujerat region. Banias are typically grocers and the term is
sometimes used to imply a selfish bargainer. In fact, his father was
chief minister at the court of an Indian prince. He was married in
1882 to Kasturba and later had four sons. While studying law in
London he lived a frugal life devoted to vegetarianism. On his
return to India he found he was hopelessly nervous as a barrister
in court. So he left for South Africa, which had a large Indian
population, for a year.
When in South Africa, he was thrown off a train for being
Indian and committed himself to work against racial
discrimination. It was in South Africa that he developed his ideas
for political campaigns. In 1906, he committed his first act of
satyagraha: refusing to register under the racial pass laws.
Gandhi returned to India in January 1915 with a considerable
reputation. He was taken under the wing of Gokhale and advised
to spend a year touring the country to understand problems and
politics. Gandhi set up a satyagraha ashram at Ahmedabad. In
1917, he intervened successfully in the protest in Bihar by indigo
workers.
Gandhi was at first motivated by a desire for Hindu–Muslim
friendship and unity. He also campaigned ceaselessly for the
inclusion of the so-called untouchables – the lowest caste –
declaring them harijans or sons of god. However, he could be
naïvely condescending and came close to stating that Muslims
would eventually become Hindus. He was always wilfully
contradictory and inconsistent in both statements and political
tactics. Over time, his political objectives gradually became more
inflexible. Most commentators agree that his rejection of Western
values and of the entire concept of progress were actually counter-
productive in the final stages of the independence movement.
Historian Judith Brown has commented: ‘It is almost impossible
at this distance of time to understand how Gandhi’s mind was
working.’
64 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Gandhi’s political ideas were enmeshed with a cluster of ideas

and personal practices concerning health, diet and sex. For
example, from 1906, he abstained from sexual intercourse with
his wife for the rest of his life in order to preserve his energy and
focus for satyagraha. Not content with this, however, he adopted
the practice in old age of sleeping naked with female supporters
in order to test his celibacy.
Gandhi’s ripostes could be withering. Dressed only in his shawl
and loincloth, he met George V at Buckingham Palace, no doubt
dressed to the imperial nines. When asked by reporters if he had
been appropriately dressed, Gandhi responded that the King-
Emperor had been wearing enough for both of them.
Famously, when asked what he thought of Western civilisation,
Gandhi replied that he thought it would be a good thing.
Gandhi’s autobiography, entitled The Story of My Experiments
with Truth, has been described as Victorian sermonising. More
recommended is Bhikhu Parekh: Gandhi, A Very Short Introduction.
Patrick French’s narrative history Liberty or Death is refreshingly
candid about Gandhi’s effectiveness and scathing of the famous
biopic Gandhi directed by Richard Attenborough.

movement, largely consisting of hartals. Gandhi also returned his

war medals to the government.

Khilafat

Key term
Gandhi also linked the protest with the Khilafat, a Muslim Khilafat
movement of grievance. Campaign to
The Ottoman Empire, ruled by the sultan, the last in a protect the last link
1000-year history of caliphs, had been defeated in the First World with the medieval
War. The British and French were proceeding to break up the caliphs or deputies
empire, creating new states such as Turkey and Iraq. The position of the prophet
of the sultan was precarious and this was perceived as an attack Muhammad.
on the international Muslim community.
In India, Muslim opinion had turned against the British, not
least because it was the British who had removed the last
Mughal emperor in 1858. Gandhi, genuinely concerned about
the sense of Muslim grievance, spoke at Khilafat conferences. In
1920, Congress passed a resolution in support. Even the viceroy,
Lord Reading, had argued with the British government over the
issue.
The Khilafat movement combined with the general Indian
non-cooperation movement to create a powerful sense of anti-
British Hindu–Muslim unity. It would not last, however.

The 1920 non-cooperation movement Key question

At the Nagpur meeting of Congress, held in December 1920, How did Gandhi
Gandhi’s proposal for an even larger non-cooperation movement mobilise for success?
was unanimously approved. Disgust at British popular support for
General Dyer, perpetrator of the Amritsar Massacre, turned into
support for Gandhi’s call for ‘a peaceful rebellion’.
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 65

Gandhi declared the aim of swaraj within one year, a barely

realistic objective but one which touched the mass of Indian
population which had hitherto left politics to a middle-class élite.
The protest campaigns included boycotts of law courts by
lawyers, of schools and colleges by teachers, and in general of
elections, councils, official functions and honours. Swadesh was
promoted and alcohol prohibited within the movement. A boycott
of British cloth had an economic effect on British manufacturers.
Boycotts became huge demonstrations during the visit to India
by the Prince of Wales in 1921. Thirty thousand people were
arrested. Agitation was rising across the whole country.
It was now apparent that Gandhi was not only the successor to
the departed leaders of Congress, Gokhale and Tilak, but also
able to create mass support through imagination and symbolism.
Even more importantly, he opened up a new kind of politics
between the failed approaches of pleading for constitutional
concessions and counter-productive terrorist attacks. Gandhi’s
methods were non-violent but assertive. They did not rely on the
rather humiliating notion of proving that educated Indians were
becoming able to govern. They gave the masses a part to play
Key term

Round table with pride.

conference As the disturbances grew, some Indian leaders, including
A meeting of Jinnah, tried to get the viceroy to find a political way forward. He
comprehensive was sympathetic to the idea and proposed a round table
inclusion with all conference. Gandhi, however, demanded the release of all
opinions equally prisoners jailed during the protests, including Khilafatists. The
considered. viceroy refused and the plan fell through.

Key question The end of non-cooperation

Why did Gandhi At the Ahmedabad session of Congress in December 1921, it was
suddenly abandon agreed to launch a mass civil disobedience campaign unless the
non-cooperation? issues of the Khilafat and the Amritsar Massacre were redressed.
As this third campaign got under way, Gandhi suddenly called it
off as a result of growing communal violence.

The Moplah rebellion

A rebellion had already broken out, early in 1921, in the Malabar
region, largely populated by the Moplahs, descendants of the
earliest Muslim Arab traders. Unrest was common but the
agitation caused by the non-cooperation movement and the
Khilafat (or their lack of success, according to some) was
exacerbated by resentment of rich local landlords. A small
altercation led to police reinforcements, further resentment and
rioting.
At this point, the Moplahs turned on their Hindu neighbours.
Over 600 were killed and 2500 forcibly converted to Islam. The
provincial government called in troops and martial law was
ruthlessly imposed in a prolonged rerun of the Amritsar situation.
Over 2000 rebels were killed, including 66 left to suffocate in a
train wagon.
The ominous character of the communal violence cast a
shadow over the non-cooperation and nationalist movement.
66 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Chauri Chaura
And then at the height of the campaign, on 6 February 1922,
Gandhi declared the movement over. He was personally
devastated that, the day before, a protest mob in the town of

Key date
Chauri Chaura had burned to death 22 policemen. For Gandhi End of non-
the moral imperative was clear. A non-violent movement must be cooperation:
just that or nothing. He announced: ‘Let the opponent glory in 6 February 1922
our so-called defeat. It is better to be charged with cowardice than
to sin against God.’
For his supporters, both Hindu and Muslim, this was a betrayal
of the movement. It left Congress split. The Khilafatist Muslims
were even more demoralised when Turkish nationalists, led by
Kemal Ataturk, swept to power in 1922, but promptly abolished
the monarchy in the name of modernisation, leaving the sultan
powerless and irrelevant.
Gandhi remained firm. Indeed, he declared his intention of
removing himself from political campaigning, saying that he
intended to work on regenerating the moral culture of India from

Key term
his ashram at Sabarmati. Ashram
Before he could devote himself to this programme, however, he Small religious,
was arrested by the British on 10 March 1922 and sentenced to often farming,
six years’ imprisonment for sedition. community.
However, the arrest of tens of thousands during the campaigns
had turned imprisonment into a badge of honour. The Indian
masses were no longer afraid of British legal authority.

Summary diagram: Gandhi and non-cooperation

Gandhi

Five campaigns Four principles

Khilafat

Moplah; Chauri Chaura

Gandhi calls off non-cooperation

 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 67

Key question 2 | Lord Simon and the Salt March

How did the Tory Gandhi was released in 1924 on medical grounds (suspected
government try to
appendicitis). He was in no mood, however, for returning to
prevent reform?
national politics and retired to the ashram to concentrate on other
matters.
Without his leadership, or perhaps taking advantage of his
absence, Indians resumed office in the various councils,
encouraged by the viceroy, Lord Reading.
In 1924, Reading was succeeded by Lord Irwin. Irwin would
prove to be a skilful negotiator when Gandhi returned to political
campaigning in 1930.
During 1924–5, the Muddiman Committee investigated the
problems becoming apparent in the political system of dyarchy
set up by the 1919 (Montagu–Chelmsford) Act (see page 54). The
majority report agreed that the system was ‘complex’ and
‘confused’, but concluded that it was too soon to decide on more
reform. The minority report declared that the system had ‘no
logical basis [and was] rooted in compromise and defensible only
as a transitional expedient’.
Also in 1924, Lord Birkenhead was appointed as the new
secretary of state. He made no secret of his antipathy to the
Montagu–Chelmsford reforms. However, he also rejected the
criticisms made in the minority Muddiman report and declared
that the majority report showed no change was necessary.
Nevertheless, a key feature of the 1919 reforms had been the
promise of a review after ten years, scheduled for 1929.
Birkenhead feared that, if the Tory government was replaced by
Labour in elections before then, further reform would indeed
follow.

The Simon Commission

Accordingly, Birkenhead brought forward the review so that it
could take place under his control. That control was evident in
1927 in his choice of people appointed to the review group,
known as the Simon Commission after its chairperson, Lord
Simon. The commission did not contain a single Indian. So,
before any discussion, let alone recommendation, it was clear that
progress was unlikely.
Key date

Simon Commission in When the Simon Commission arrived in India in 1928 on a

India: 1928 fact-finding tour, the response of Congress was to boycott all
meetings and hold protest demonstrations. The Muslim League,
led by Jinnah, also avoided the commission. But the commission
met other Muslim representatives, which Birkenhead publicised
to try to disturb the Hindus and break the boycott.
The commission’s work and eventual report was overtaken by
two more radical statements: the Nehru Report and the
Dominion Declaration.
68 | Britain and India 1845–1947

The Nehru Report

The boycott of the Simon Commission drew Indian political
Key question
How did Indians
parties closer again. In 1928, an all-parties conference was envisage the final
convened: an Indian-only round table conference. Representatives constitution?
attended from Congress, the Khilafat Committee, Central Sikh

Key terms
League, the Indian (Princely) States’ Subjects Association, the Parsi
Parsi Panchayat, the Bombay non-Brahmin Party, the Communist Ancient Iranian
Party of Bombay and the Bombay Workers and Peasants Party. religion.
The conference appointed a committee to draw up the
Panchayat
principles of an Indian constitution. The chairman was Pandit
Assembly (originally
Motilal Nehru, by whose name the final report is known.
of five village
After some difficulty, the Report of the Committee by the All
elders).
Parties Conference to determine the principles of the constitution
of India was presented in August 1928 to the fourth session of the Communism
all-parties conference in Lucknow, which approved its The political
recommendations. philosophy of a
The nation would be called the ‘Commonwealth of India’ and classless society with
the recommendations were based on gaining dominion status. workers in power;
Despite broad agreement, the radical wing of Congress, led by ideology of the
Jawaharlal Nehru (son of the chairman Motilal) and Subhas Soviet Union.
Chandra Bose, saw this as a disappointment.
Mahasabha
The recommendations also included:
Literally meaning
• No state religion; freedom of conscience and practice of great association.
religion.
• Joint mixed electorates for lower houses in central and

Key date
The Nehru Report:
provincial legislatures. August 1928
• Reservation of seats for Muslims on central councils and in
minority provinces, with Hindu reservation in the North West
Frontier Province.
• No reservation of Muslim seats in Punjab and Bengal.
• Reservation of seats for ten years only.
• Universal adult suffrage.
Such all-India agreement was encouraging to nationalists and
the conference enthusiastically reappointed the committee to
move on from this framework to the painstaking work of drafting
a constitution which could be presented as a parliamentary bill.
This proved a step too far. First, the idea of a bill was dropped
and it was agreed that the report, slightly expanded, was
impressive enough.
Then, at the All Parties Convention in Calcutta (late 1928 into
1929), Jinnah, speaking for the All-India Muslim League, clashed
with Jayakar of the All-India Hindu Mahasabha. Jinnah was
arguing for preservation of the spirit of the Lucknow Pact (see
page 47) by retaining Muslim reservation of seats in the Punjab
and Bengal and one-third of the total seats in the central
legislature. Jayakar urged the conference not to start undoing the
report and questioned whether Jinnah was sufficiently supported
by Muslim opinion.
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 69

At a subsequent meeting of Congress, the Nehru Report was

Key question warmly received, particularly by Gandhi. Jinnah told Congress
Why did the
agreement unravel? that sympathetic statements were not enough. There must be
legal protection of the position of minorities. He argued that
concessions in order to preserve nationalist unity should come
from the majority power, Congress, not the minorities.
When Congress rejected his arguments, Jinnah regarded it as a
plan to exclude Muslims from the mainstream movement,
prompted by their lack of united representation.
Jinnah’s hopes of an all-community nationalist movement
faded. In March 1929, he made a counter-proposal for a federal
constitution with protection for Muslims. This is sometimes called
Jinnah’s Fourteen Points in a reference to President Woodrow
Wilson’s postwar principles. However, even the Muslim League
rejected this direction. Jinnah decided to retire from politics and
indeed leave India for England. However, like Gandhi from South
Africa, he would return stronger and more determined.
This marked the end of the short-lived political convergence.
Gandhi would soon retake the propaganda initiative and the
British would make a series of political concessions. But the
Nehru Report went no further and the next piece of British
legislation – the 1935 Government of India Act – did not draw on
its recommendations.

The Dominion Declaration

The Simon Commission had never been likely to produce
progressive findings, but Birkenhead laid down the limits anyway.
He ruled out any reference to dominion status, even as the
ultimate goal of British policy, since this would concede the right
of the nation to decide its own destiny and in his words:

We were not prepared to accord India at present or in any way

prejudge the question whether it should ever be accorded.

Birkenhead may not have been prepared for that but his political
Key date

Dominion Declaration: instincts had been right. In 1929, a Labour government came to
1929 power and promptly announced plans for a round table
conference. It also authorised the Viceroy Lord Irwin to declare
that:

His Majesty’s Government saw the attainment of dominion status

as the logical outcome of the Montagu declaration of 1917.

British control would be retained over viceregal and military

matters but provincial administration would be entirely Indian.
The defeated Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin supported
the declaration in order to reassure Indian public opinion that it
was agreed national policy and not a party-political tug-of-war.
However, Birkenhead, no longer secretary of state, was
outraged because the declaration (and the round table
conference) pre-empted any recommendations of the Simon
Commission and indeed rendered it irrelevant.
70 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Profile: Jawaharlal Nehru;

later Pandit (‘Teacher’) Nehru 1889–1964
1889 –
Born in Allahabad, northern India
1904 –
Educated at Harrow public school in England
1907 –
Cambridge University, then trained as a barrister
1921 –
First imprisonment
1929 –
President of Congress
1946 –
Head of interim government; Vice-President
Governor General’s Executive Council
1947–64 – Prime minister of India
1964 – Died

Jawaharlal ‘beautiful jewel’ Nehru was born into a prosperous

Kashmiri Brahmin family. His father, Motilal, was an intellectual
and politician. He was an only child until he was 11 years old. In
1916 he was married to Kamala (died 1936) and his daughter
Indira was born in 1918.
It was the Amritsar Massacre that aroused Nehru’s interest in
politics. During the non-cooperation movements his concern for
the poor grew with his popular appeal. Nehru believed
passionately in modern secular democracy, with equal rights for
women, and was a lifelong anti-fascist. He has been called ‘a
Brahmin who loathed caste’. He himself declared: ‘I am a socialist
and a republican and am no believer in kings and princes or in
the order that produces the modern kings of industry’. He
wanted independence for India more for the chance to improve
the lives of the population than just political pride.
In the 1920s Nehru visited Europe and Soviet Russia, which
impressed him particularly. In the 1930s he was horrified by
fascist Europe but on a visit to China established good relations
with the nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek. Between 1931 and
1935, he spent all but six months in prison, which he described as
‘the best university’.
Nehru was the protégé of Gandhi, who described him as ‘pure
as crystal, he is truthful beyond suspicion. He is a knight [without
fear, without dishonour]. The nation is safe in his hands.’
However, the increasing emphasis Gandhi placed on religion and
Hinduism, in particular, strained their relationship. Nevertheless,
Gandhi, the visionary, and Nehru, the politician, have been
paired with Marx, the thinker, and Lenin, the achiever.
As prime minister of India, Nehru led Soviet-style five-year
plans to industrialise the country and massively increase its food
production. In foreign affairs he virtually created the non-aligned
movement at the United Nations between the West and the
Communist bloc. He was bitterly disappointed by the Chinese
invasion of India in 1962.
Nehru was a lonely man but much loved – publicly by the
Indian masses and privately by the famous – Sarojini Padmaja
Naidu, Lady Edwina Mountbatten, Madame Chiang Kai-Shek,
and Jacqueline Kennedy.
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 71

Nehru’s great achievement was to ensure that India was not a

Hindu state as a mirror of Muslim Pakistan. However, his refusal to
work with the Muslim League after the 1937 elections was a
disastrous mistake.
The standard biography is by Akbar: Nehru, the Making of India.
There is a shorter read by Shashi Taroor: Nehru, the Invention of
India.
Nehru’s daughter Indira later married a Gandhi (no relation)
and created a parliamentary Indian dynasty by becoming prime
minister. She was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguard in revenge
for her ordering an armed assault on Amritsar’s Golden Temple
in 1984.

More significantly for the future, the announcement roused the

anger of Winston Churchill, the future wartime prime minister,
whose opposition to Indian nationalism became as implacable as
Gandhi’s opposition to the British.
The dominion declaration did nothing to hold back the
growing radicalism of nationalism in India. Both the British and
Congress were concerned by the growing strength of the
Communist Party. The British response was to arrest and
imprison the leaders for four years. Gandhi’s tactic was to propel
Jawaharlal Nehru, the socialist and Soviet sympathiser, to
Congress leadership in order to avoid splits and challenges.

Purna Swaraj
At the Lahore session of December 1929, Jawaharlal Nehru, the
Key term

Purna swaraj new president of Congress, declared the goal of purna swaraj and
Total spurned the invitation to participate in the forthcoming round
independence. table conference.
Congress nominated 26 January 1930 as independence day.
This would be the trigger for renewed non-cooperation with the
hope of reuniting the nationalist movement while stemming
support for the more radical movements led by Subhas Chandra
Bose. The Congress working committee agreed at a secret
meeting that Gandhi should have the freedom to initiate a civil
disobedience campaign when he judged the moment right.
Gandhi, however, was not confident that the time was right for
civil disobedience. He was worried about whether the masses
would respond but also about the potential for violence. He
inclined towards using a selected group of supporters chosen for
Key question their absolute, even religious, commitment to non-violence.
How did Gandhi’s
Above all, he wanted to avoid Congress being held responsible for
protest succeed?
another Chauri Chaura and more accusations of betrayal if the
campaign had to be halted.

The Salt March

Gandhi’s solution was brilliantly imaginative and has become one
of the most famous protest events in history.
72 | Britain and India 1845–1947

He announced that, with 78 carefully chosen supporters, he

would walk the 400 km from his ashram at Sabarmati to the sea at
Dandi beach. The group would collect muddy sea-salt and boil it
in order to make it pure and usable.
The apparent point of this campaign was to publicise a boycott
of the salt tax, a tax by the British on a basic ingredient of
cooking for the poorest as much as anyone. However, Gandhi also
wished, as he stated in a letter of intent to the viceroy: ‘to convert
the British people through non-violence and thus make them see
the wrong they have done to India’.
At first, the British response was to treat the planned march as
a joke. Then Gandhi held a gathering before the march which
drew 75,000 people. On 11 March 1930, the day before the start,
Gandhi himself addressed 10,000 at a prayer meeting. The
British soon realised that the march was attracting world press
attention.

Key date
The 78 satyagrahis set out the next day. Every day, as well as Start of the Salt
marching about 20 km, they were expected to spin khadi, engage March: 12 March
in group prayers, keep a diary and project peacefulness. If they 1930
encountered resistance they would submit according to the
principles of ahimsa.
Accordingly, the march took on the character of a pilgrimage
through the physical challenge and pain of walking in the heat of
the sun in the hot dry season. The theme was perfectly symbolic,
did not threaten Indian economic interests and embraced all
religious communities and castes. It appeared to pose no threat to
the running of the British Indian Empire while drawing the
world’s attention to British greed and exploitation.

N Delhi

Karachi

Sabarmati ashram

Route of the Salt March

Dandi

Bombay
Arabian
Sea

0 150 300

km
The route of the Salt
March of 1929.
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 73

Gandhi at the end of

his 1930s’ Salt
March. What moment
is captured in the
photograph? What
might the white
clothing suggest to
British readers?

It also challenged the authorities as to how, or whether, to use

force against such a peaceful, almost religious, event. On 5 April,
the penultimate day of the march, Gandhi declared ‘I want world
sympathy in this battle of right against might.’
It was also noted, however, that Gandhi’s own fear of tensions
within the protest group had led to the exclusion of women and
the inclusion of just two Muslims.
In towns along the route of the march a large number of Indian
officials resigned from their posts. Elsewhere, a march was
organised in south India, there were protests in Bombay and the
North West Frontier Province and 2000 demonstrators at a salt
production plant at Dharasana were attacked by police armed
Key term

Lathi with lathis. Two were killed and 320 injured. The international
A steel-tipped cane. reporting of this showed the dangers of over-reaction.
No direct action was taken against Gandhi and his satyagrahis
when they reached the sea and the end of their march on 6 April.
The police had been ordered to muddy up the salt deposits at the
shore but this didn’t stop Gandhi creating a lump of salt that he
auctioned for 1600 rupees (equivalent to £160 at the time).
74 | Britain and India 1845–1947

The propaganda effect was running entirely in Gandhi’s favour.

Accordingly, the British felt compelled to take action, even if they
managed to avoid an immediate over-reaction. Over 20,000
protesters were arrested on the viceroy’s orders and, on 4 May,
Gandhi himself was arrested under a regulation of 1827 and
taken to Yeravda jail in Bombay.
If the British thought they had now neutralised Gandhi, they
were sorely mistaken.

Summary diagram: Lord Simon and the Salt March

Simon Commission

Boycott
(Motilal) Nehru Report

Jinnah rejects

Dominion Declaration

Purna Swaraj
(Jawaharlal) Nehru Congress
president

Civil disobedience
Gandhi’s Salt March

3 | Talks
British positions
By the early 1930s, the Liberals had faded and the two main
British political parties were Labour and the Conservatives.
Labour, which had in effect taken on the progressive aims of the
nineteenth-century Liberal Party, was convinced that India was
entitled to democratic autonomy. The Conservatives, as their
name implied, had no desire for change. They accepted the need
for political concessions, if unrest threatened the Empire and
white people in person, but had been generally content that
progress was and would be very slow, with all-party agreement
necessary.

Round table conference Key questions

On 31 January 1929, the viceroy, Lord Irwin, had announced that How did the British
the Labour government would convene a round table conference proceed?
to settle India’s constitutional future. This had been followed by Were the British
the Dominion Declaration of October 1929. serious?
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 75

Indian nationalists naturally assumed that the objective of the

conference was to draw up a constitution for the dominion of
India. However, the British Liberal and Conservative parties were
generally opposed to the granting of dominion status. The
government stepped back. Lord Irwin explained to Gandhi, in
Key dates

First round table

conference: prison, that the announcement had been merely to reassure about
12 November 1930 long-term intentions and ensure cooperation with the Simon
The Gandhi–Irwin Commission. Dominion status would not be on offer at the
Pact: 5 March 1931 conference. Later the same month, at its Lahore session,
Congress responded by agreeing the objective of purna swaraj and
resolving to boycott the conference.
On 12 November 1930, the round table conference was
convened in the House of Lords, London. The conference started
with 89 representatives, 16 from the three main British political
parties, 16 princes and 57 nominees of the viceroy to represent
British India, including Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians and
Key term

Scheduled castes scheduled castes (termed depressed classes at the conference).

Political term for The first session ended in January 1931 with a basic agreement
the lowest caste, on two points of a future constitutional settlement:
commonly known as
• Central and provincial executive power should be accountable
untouchables or
to legislatures (as in modern democracies).
dalits.
• British India and Indian India (the princely states) should be
federally linked as one nation.
However, The Times’ correspondent summed up the general
realisation that ‘no Indian delegation without Gandhi, the two
Nehrus or Patel could possibly be looked on as representative’.
Moreover, so long as Gandhi remained in prison he would be a
focus, indeed a cause, of protest and rejection.
Accordingly, in January 1931, Irwin took the bold step of
releasing Gandhi in order to undertake personal negotiations.
These led to a political agreement which enabled the round table
conference to progress but also led to accusations of betrayal on
both sides.

The Gandhi–Irwin Pact

The agreement was a formal legal document, signed on 5 March
1931 and publicised the same day.
Known as the Gandhi–Irwin Pact, it stated that, on Gandhi’s
side:
• The civil disobedience movement would be halted.
• Congress would participate in a reconvened round table
conference.
And on Irwin’s side:
• An inquiry into police brutality would not be held.
• Political prisoners not guilty of violent crime would be released.
• Banned organisations would be unbanned, fines cancelled,
other restrictions lifted and officials re-employed if they had
resigned.
76 | Britain and India 1845–1947

• Peaceful picketing in support of Indian goods was permitted,

but not when it threatened the sale of British goods.
• The government promised that all future political changes
would be in the interests of India itself.
Congress ratified the agreement although there was criticism that
yet again the mass movement had been abandoned when it Key question
What did the
seemed to be getting somewhere. However, it was recognised that Gandhi–Irwin Pact
the manner in which the pact had come about made Gandhi achieve?
equal in stature, if not legal status, to the viceroy. The symbolism
of this was more important than the detail.
When Lord Willingdon became viceroy later in 1931, he made
no secret of his scorn for Irwin’s ‘weakness’ which now obliged
him to treat Gandhi with public respect.
Irwin had, however, recognised the dangers of ever larger and
more effective mass movements. He reported to the British
government that repression by force would only make matters
worse in the long run. Political dialogue was the only safe way
forward. He stated his view that:

What is important is to make perfectly plain to India that the

ultimate purpose for her is not one of perpetual subordination in a
white Empire.

Churchill’s reaction
To the British Conservatives it appeared that the government was
rewarding the chief Indian troublemaker for creating disorder.
Winston Churchill declared in the House of Commons that it was:

alarming and also nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle

Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the
East, striding half-naked up the steps of the viceregal palace while
he is still organising and conducting a defiant campaign of civil
disobedience to parley on equal terms with representative of the
King-Emperor. Such a spectacle can only increase the unrest in
India and the danger to which white people there are exposed.

Churchill resigned from his opposition front-bench position

specifically to campaign around Britain against Congress.
Churchill had grown up surrounded by imperialist beliefs in the
superiority of white people and Christian values. He now formed
the India Defence League with support from 50 Tory MPs and
Lancashire cotton industrialists. His reactionary passion led him
to make statements such as that democracy was ‘totally unsuited’
to Indians. He saw no problem with making it clear to Indians
that they would be forever subordinate subjects in a British
Empire. This in turn led Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to
declare that the greatest danger to the Empire was ‘extremists in
India and at home’.
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 77

Profile: Winston Spencer Churchill 1874–1965

1874 – Born in Woodstock, near Oxford
1897 – Served as an army officer on North West Frontier
1899–1902 – Saw action in the Boer War, South Africa
1900 – Became a Conservative MP
1905–15 – Served as a Liberal government minister
1914–18 – Saw action on the Western Front and became
secretary of state for war
1924–9 – Chancellor of exchequer in the Conservative
government
1940–5 – Prime minister during the Second World War
1950–5 – Re-elected prime minister
1965 – Died

Churchill was another of the great figures of the twentieth century.

He was born at Blenheim Palace, awarded to his ancestor the
Duke of Marlborough for military victories, but he was also the
grandson of an American millionaire. He had a speech
impediment, did poorly at Harrow public school and suffered
from deep depressions.
Churchill threw himself into military action on the borders of
the British Empire, combined with journalism. He entered
Parliament as a Conservative but switched to the Liberals and
soon held high office. He switched back after the war but his
opposition to Indian nationalism and his calls to prepare for war
against Germany, as well as the changes of party, gave him the
reputation of a maverick.
The onset of war vindicated Churchill and he became an
inspirational leader but was abruptly kicked out in the 1945
elections because of popular desire for a more equal society. He
became prime minister again in 1950, was knighted and US
President Kennedy made him the first ever Honorary Citizen of
America. On his death Queen Elizabeth II granted him a state
funeral that was broadcast on television around the world.

The second and third round table sessions

Key term Key date

Second round table The round table conference reconvened on 7 September 1931,
conference: chaired by the new secretary of state Sir Samuel Hoare.
7 September 1931 Gandhi was the only representative of Congress but was
mandated to make no concessions from the demand of purna
swaraj. Gandhi did however claim to speak for all India in his sole
Mandated person, bluntly questioning the right of his fellow Indians to be
Instructed by a round the table at all. This naturally provoked anger from the
political representative of the scheduled castes, Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar,
organisation. and the three Muslim representatives.
Not surprisingly, then, the second session ended without
agreement on the political protection to be given to different
religious communities. As a result, the British government
announced on 4 August 1932 the communal award setting out
78 | Britain and India 1845–1947

rights to separate representation for recognised minorities and

Key date
British government’s
for the scheduled (or ‘depressed’) castes. This last point provoked communal award:
Gandhi to start another fast, on the grounds that Congress, or at 4 August 1932
least he personally, was the best protector of the dalits, whom he
had taken to calling harijans in a rather condescending manner.

Key term
By the time the third session was convened, the prime minister Harijans
Ramsay Macdonald had lost the support of his own Labour Party Translates as sons of
and continued in office only through a National Government god.
formed of his supposed political opponents. Because the Labour
Party had been the main driver for Indian political progress, this
doomed the final session, which Gandhi and many others did not
attend.

Civil disobedience Key question

While Gandhi had participated in the second session of the round Why did increased
table conference, the repression of ordinary Indians had repression strengthen
continued with particularly brutal measures in Bengal. nationalism?
When the demoralised Gandhi returned from London, Viceroy
Willingdon saw this as the moment to strengthen the weak

Gandhi at the round table conference in September 1931. Given the weather in London at the
time, what would Gandhi’s choice of clothing suggest to a British newspaper reader?
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 79

position Irwin had left him and had Gandhi arrested within a
week of his return.
Congress declared that the letter and spirit of the
Gandhi–Irwin Pact was broken and requested discussion with the
Viceroy. Congress resolved on 1 June 1932 that:

in the event of a satisfactory response not forthcoming from the

viceroy, the Working Committee calls upon the nation to resume
civil disobedience, including non-payment of taxes.

Far from giving a satisfactory response, the government granted

itself, within 24 hours, emergency powers. It proceeded to outlaw
not Congress as such, but the whole of its working organisation,
its local branches and committees. An estimated 100,000 people
were placed under immediate arrest. The confrontation of a year
before was firmly back in place and Nehru described British India
as a police state.
Gandhi, fasting in protest at the communal award, was released
from prison on health grounds. He promptly advised Congress to
end the civil disobedience and requested the government to
release the prisoners. Both refused.

Individual civil disobedience

Key date

Individual civil In fact Congress made a subtle announcement that individuals

disobedience: 1933–4 should feel free to take responsibility for their own civil
disobedience. Between August 1933 and March 1934 thousands
took such action while Congress could claim it was not official
policy. Gandhi was again arrested but once again released because
of his health.
Eventually, the action was crushed by mass arrests and
repression but the nationalist movement had lost its fear together
with its respect for British justice and values. Guardian newspaper
correspondent H.N. Brailsford wrote in January 1931:

To face the lathi charges became a point of honour and in a spirit

of martyrdom volunteers went out in hundreds to be beaten. They
gave a display of disciplined passive courage. The great mass of
the people is not in a normal state of mind. It has been roused to a
high pitch of sustained exaltation … to anger, it doubts our
sincerity and above all it is passionately devoted to its imprisoned
leaders.

Moreover, it is clear from the private reports of various viceroys

that the nationalists and their civil disobedience were having
much greater success than anticipated and no one knew how to
deal with Gandhi.
80 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Gandhi’s original 1931 design for the Indian flag. The top stripe is saffron
(orange) representing Hindus, the bottom stripe green representing
Muslims and the central white other faiths. What does the spinning
wheel represent in Gandhian thinking? What has the modern Indian flag
substituted for the spinning wheel while echoing the original design?

Summary diagram: Talks

Gandhi jailed

Round table conference

• Session 1 Gandhi–Irwin pact
• Session 2
• Session 3

Communal award

Civil disobedience

Churchill and diehards

Gandhi jailed

4 | Elections and Relations Between Congress

and the Muslims
The Government of India Act
In 1917 Montagu had declared; in 1929 Irwin had announced.
The Simon Commission and the round table conference had
Key term

come and gone. Resentment in India continued to rise while White paper
political progress was stalled. Finally, in 1933 the British A firm set of
government published the long-awaited white paper on the proposals for
Indian constitution. legislation.
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 81

The three main principles, based on such agreements as were

reached at the round table conference, were as follows:
• eventual federation at the national level
• provincial autonomy
• special responsibilities and safeguards vested in the executive
power.
Key terms

Hansard The white paper proposals were drafted as legislation by a joint

Published select committee, which included 21 delegates from British India
transcripts of and the Indian states and was chaired by Lord Linlithgow (soon
parliamentary to become viceroy).
debates. There was considerable opposition to the Government of India
Bill not only from predictably outraged Conservative imperialists
Orders-in-council
but also from radicals who thought it did not go far enough. The
Legislation
imperialist die-hards wanted ‘no surrender’, but presented no
approved by a
alternative policy. Nevertheless, they found enough to say to fill
viceroy without full
over 4000 pages of Hansard objecting to as much as they could
parliamentary
on the grounds that it would all lead to inefficiency, nepotism and
scrutiny.
corruption. This would form a stark contrast with the eventual
Independence Bill of 1947.
The Bill received royal assent on 2 August, becoming the
Key date

Government of India Government of India Act 1935. With 450 clauses and 15
Act: 2 August 1935 schedules it was the longest and most complicated legislation ever
passed by Parliament. Even then, it proposed to settle the extent
of the franchise by subsequent orders-in-council.
And despite all that, it still managed to avoid setting a date for
even dominion status.

Provisions of the Act

The main provisions of the Act, which would come into effect in
1937, were to:
• expand the electorate to 35 million people (still less than
ten per cent of the population)
• abolish dyarchy and give provincial control to all matters
previously ‘reserved’
• create full provincial governments each with a legislature and
executive
• make no great changes to central administration
• retain viceregal responsibility for defence and foreign affairs
• separate off from 1 April 1937 the province of Burma (which
would have its own governor reporting to London)
• carve out two new provinces: Orissa and Sind
• reserve (Section 93) powers for central government after
declaration of a state of emergency, including overturning
provincial legislation during ‘disorder’.

Reaction
The prolonged wait again ensured that Indians would be
disappointed by the outcome. As Nanda Saheb, a biographer of
Gandhi, has commented:
82 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Each instalment tended to become out of date by the time it was

actually granted. The reforms of 1919 might well have appeased
India in 1909; the reforms of 1935 would have evoked enthusiasm
in 1919, etc.

In any case, the full effect of the Act would not come until
elections in 1937 so there was a lull in activity. Congress in
particular was divided between opposition to the Act in principle
and attempting to gain whatever power the Act offered.

Federation and the princes

A major feature of the 1935 Act was the aim of eventual
federation of British India and the princely states, once half of
the states had agreed.
Although no date had been set for dominion status, it was clear
that it would come. So, the British attempted to ensure that a
future self-governing dominion had a constitution which would
strengthen conservative and loyal elements, limit the control
which Congress might seek and increase regional power which
might weaken Congress as a national organisation.
Accordingly, along with concessions to the Muslim League, the
federation of the princely states was designed to bring into
government these natural conservatives. To help persuade them,
the Act contained various protections and inducements.
For example, the princes would be permitted to select their
own representatives without elections. In addition, although the
princely states contained 20 per cent of the population, they
would have 33 per cent of the representatives in the lower federal
assembly and 40 per cent in the higher council of state.
Nevertheless, the princes refused one by one to sign up to the
agreement. They feared too much that there would be pressure to
move from their autocratic structures towards democratic
processes and to relinquish their personal armies into national
armed forces.
Their opposition stalled any moves towards federation and
when Britain declared war on Germany in 1939, the initiative was
formally suspended.
Nehru observed ironically how eager the ‘advanced’ Europeans
were to work with the most reactionary forces of ‘backward’ India
to thwart progress.

The late 1930s

Between the passing of the 1935 Act and the 1937 elections, there
was another change of viceroy. In April 1936, Lord Willingdon
was succeeded by Lord Linlithgow, who would turn out to be the
longest serving viceroy since Dalhousie in the mid-nineteenth
century. And just as Dalhousie’s policies had contributed to the
causes of the Indian Mutiny (see page 10), so would Linlithgow’s
reactionary and repressive approach accelerate the complete end
of the British Raj.
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 83

Viceroy and Vicereine Linlithgow photographed leaving their official

residence in 1940 to attend a garden party. To what extent do the
clothes represent historical change or continuity?

On the nationalist side, Gandhi remained the prime force.

Congress had given the president more power including the
choice of members of the Congress working committee.
Accordingly, the choice of president was ever more crucial and
behind the scenes Gandhi’s views were decisive. In 1936, Gandhi
ensured that Nehru was elected president for the second time. He
had to overcome Nehru’s own reluctance because of pressure
from leftist Congress socialists to reject the 1935 Act. Nehru’s
presidency ensured that Congress remained a broad force rather
than splintering into squabbling groups.

Key question The 1937 elections

How did elections If the 1935 Act had been an anticlimax, the elections of 1937 to
change the political the positions created by the Act electrified the political situation.
struggle? A sense of Indians governing Indians was palpable and, for the
first time, the terms prime minister and council of ministers were
Key date

Indian general used. Within a short period, ministries increased spending on

election: 1937 education and public health, while regulating landlords and
moneylenders. The ministries worked effectively, distributing and
84 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Profile: Lord Linlithgow 1887–1952

1887 – Born in South Queensferry, West Lothian
1933 – Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Indian
Constitutional Reforms
1936–43 – Viceroy of India
1952 – Died

Victor Alexander John Hope (Hopie), second Marquess of

Linlithgow, became the longest-serving viceroy of the twentieth
century. At nearly two metres tall, he was also the longest in body.
As a result of boyhood polio, he could only turn his head by
turning his body which, with his height, gave him an imperious
manner.
Linlithgow chaired the committee whose recommendations
became the 1935 Government of India Act. He is said to have
worked hard to prepare the Indian princes for federation with
British India. Nevertheless, his lasting image is of a traditional
imperialist toff, partly because of his rigorous suppression of
nationalist campaigns and partly, at the end, his refusal to
intervene in the Bengal Famine of 1943.
Nehru described him as:
Heavy of body and slow of mind, solid as a rock and with almost a
rock’s lack of awareness, possessing the qualities and feelings of an
old-fashioned British aristocrat, he sought with old integrity and
honesty of purpose to find a way out of the tangle.

allocating work with little intervention or obstruction from British

governors. Parliamentary secretaries were appointed to start to
develop a new generation of political leaders.
In electoral terms, Congress was victorious and took power in
Bihar, Bombay, Madras, the United Provinces and the Central
Provinces. Congress was now, in effect, the governing party of
India. To co-ordinate its approach across the country in the
various provincial governments, Congress created the Congress
Parliamentary Board (CPB) – in short, a party committee to
determine national policy. The chairman of the CPB, Sardar
Patel, was therefore the most important politician in the country.
Patel ensured that the more radical proposals of the Congress
president, Nehru, were aired but then defeated. In the words of a
British intelligence report (quoted by French): ‘Nehru is the high-
grade tool in the hands of the skilled craftsman.’

Reactions
Gandhi became still more distanced from actual politics. On the
one hand, he thought the new powers likely to corrupt and
distract Indian politicians. On the other, he regarded his own
spiritual ‘corruption’ as responsible for the problems of the
country.
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 85

Congress felt itself so powerful as a result of the electoral

landslide that it refused to cooperate with the viceroy unless he
promised not to overrule decisions by provincial governments.
The disdainful Linlithgow was eventually forced to agree.
More seriously, the Muslim League was treated with disdain by
Congress itself which refused to include any Muslim politicians in
provincial governments. The consequences of this refusal,
described by Ayesha Jalal as ‘one of the gravest miscalculations by
the Congress leadership in its long history’, would be disastrous
for the unity of the country.

Key question The Muslim position

How did Jinnah move Political representation for Muslims was fragmented. There were
to build up the 482 seats reserved for Muslims in the 1937 elections and the
Muslim League? Muslim League was the largest group with only 109. The League
held 15 per cent of all the seats in the legislatures, when the
Muslim population was 22 per cent. This was a far cry from the
dominance of Congress in the open seats. Congress itself, despite
Gandhi’s claims that it represented all India, had only 26 Muslim
representatives out of 1500, less than 2 per cent. Nevertheless,
Nehru declared that he came ‘into greater touch with the Muslim
masses than most of the members of the Muslim League’.
Jinnah, who had been persuaded to return from his successful
law work in London to lead the Muslim League, was spurred to
action by the results and the refusal of Congress to include
Muslim politicians. Jinnah adopted the following strategies:
• He persuaded smaller Muslim organisations to merge with the
Muslim League. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the leading
Muslim within Congress, rejected him and Jinnah denounced
him as a puppet of the Hindus.
• After being elected as president in 1937, he reformed the
structures of the Muslim League and appointed effective
supporters to key positions.
• Despite his own belief in secular politics and states, he began to
campaign openly on a separate Muslim basis rather than as
part of a nationalist movement.
• Knowing that political Muslims were generally of the landlord
and landowner class, he avoided the social radicalism and
working-class character of Congress. To further appeal to this
class, he promoted the use of the high-class language Urdu,
even though he could not speak it himself.
• Increasingly, he identified Congress as the threat to Muslim
interests. A popular target was the Congress anthem, ‘Bande
Mataram’, which praised most of the communities of India
while pointedly not mentioning the Muslims.
• Finally, Jinnah increasingly moved from the objective of
protected Muslim representation within India towards the
objective of independent Muslim-controlled provinces or even
states. The idea of Pakistan appeared to be a useful negotiation
point – whether as promise to Muslims or threat to Congress.
86 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Pakistan
In Lucknow, after the 1937 elections, Jinnah declared his aim Key question
How did the idea of
to be: Pakistan gain
ground?
the establishment in India of full independence in the form of a
federation of free democratic states in which the rights and
interests of the Musulmans were paramount.

This might be interpreted as the point at which various separatist

ideals debated throughout the 1930s were adopted as a political
objective.
The poet Muhammad Iqbal had proposed a two-nation future
in 1930, allowing Muslims and Hindus their own areas within one
Indian state. The two-state idea was crystallised in the name
Pakistan, which allegedly came to Choudry Rahmat Ali while on a
London bus. On the one hand, the name means ‘land of the
pure’; on the other, the letters are extracted from the names of
the Muslim majority provinces: Punjab, Afghan (North West

CHINA

SIKHS
PAKISTAN
Delhi
RAJPUTANA

HAIDARISTAN
MUNISTAN
FARUQISTAN
BANGISTAN
Pakian Sea
SIDDIQISTAN BURMA

Bangian
Sea

OSMANISTAN
Arabian
Sea
Osmanian Bay of
Sea Bengal

MAPLISTAN

NASARISTAN
0 400 800
SAFIISTAN
CEYLON km
Muslim states

Possible Muslim states across the subcontinent, suggested by Choudry Rahmat Ali, late 1930s.
 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 87

Profile: Muhammad Ali Jinnah; later Quaid-i-Azam

(‘Great Leader’) 1875–1948
1875 – Born in Karachi, now in modern-day Pakistan
1892–6 – Studied law in England
1909 – Appointed as Congress Muslim representative on
Imperial Legislative Council
1913 – Joined the All-India Muslim League
1919 – Resigned over the Rowlatt Act
1929 – Presented the Fourteen Points
1930 – Enjoyed lucrative work as a lawyer in London
1935 – Returned to lead the Muslim League
1940 – Made the Lahore Resolution to demand the formation
of Pakistan
1944 – Involved in the Gandhi–Jinnah talks
1946 – Called for direct action as a result of the Calcutta
killings
1947 – Became governor-general of Pakistan
1948 – Died

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was born into a lower middle-class family.

His father was a merchant.
As a lawyer, Jinnah quickly developed a reputation for
devastating effectiveness and gained great wealth as a result. His
professional success, reflected in his style of dress and manner,
was an important part of his appeal to middle-class Muslims able
to vote. The contrast with Gandhi could hardly have been greater.
However, Jinnah’s personal life was less happy. His first wife
died at a young age. His second wife, Ruttie, was half his age and
from a Parsi family, which caused family friction. Ironically, Jinnah
would later disown his beloved daughter Dina when she married a
non-Muslim. After Ruttie’s death in 1929, Jinnah’s closest
companion was his sister Fatima. From the 1930s onward, Jinnah
kept his increasing ill-health a close secret.
Historians recognise two broad phases to Jinnah’s political
career. Up to the end of the 1920s, Jinnah was a committed
Congress nationalist. He was very moderate and disapproved of
mass campaigns of disobedience. He was determined to preserve
election quotas for Muslims but was personally very secular in
outlook. There is considerable evidence that he was not a devout
Muslim. He disapproved of Gandhi’s mixture of religion and
politics.
The Congress rejection of Muslim quotas in the Nehru Report
drove Jinnah out of politics (and back to London) for a while.
However, the Congress rejection of Muslim politicians after the
1937 elections spurred him to take control, at the request of many
Muslims, of the All-India League. Increasingly, Jinnah appeared to
support Muslim separatist demands. He started to learn Urdu,
which was likely to become the official language of Pakistan, and
appeared at public events in formal Muslim clothing. The
culmination of this second phase of his career would see Jinnah,
uniquely among modern politicians, create almost single-handedly
88 | Britain and India 1845–1947

a completely new state formed on a religious basis and become its

first supreme leader.
Jinnah is often treated as the villain of Indian nationalism –
the wrecker of a united independent India. Much of this comes
from his lack of personal charm. Even a friend described him as
‘tall and stately, formal and fastidious, aloof and superior of
manner’. In Pakistan, however, he is revered as Baba-e-Qaum
(Father of the Nation).

Frontier) Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan. Significantly, Bengal –

poor, geographically inconvenient and full of untouchable
converts – is missing.
The idea circulated in pamphlets without being taken seriously
by either Indians or the British. The practical way forward
seemed to be the reservation of seats for Muslims and other
minorities as incorporated in British legislation in 1909, 1919
and 1935 and supported by Congress at the Lucknow Pact of
1916. However, the Nehru Report of 1928 and the triumphal
scorn of Congress after the 1937 elections showed that this
position was precarious in any future Congress-dominated
independent India. Muslims and others would have to compete in
open democratic processes. The alternative would be to create
separate democracies, in other words, split the country. It was the
Muslim strategic hope that this would be so unacceptable to
Congress that it would preserve the reservation of seats.
In fact, the momentum of the Pakistan movement would
become unstoppable because of the obstinate behaviours of both
Congress and Churchill during the Second World War.

Summary diagram: Elections and relations between

Congress and the Muslims

Government of India Act 1935

• Executive safeguards • Eventual federation • Provincial autonomy

Position of princes

1937 elections

Congress snubs Muslim League

Jinnah returns to lead

 Campaigns and Concession 1919–39 | 89

Study Guide: AS Question

In the style of Edexcel

Source 1
From: a declaration written by Gandhi and read out in towns and
villages all over India on 26 January 1930.
We hold it to be a crime to submit any longer to [British] rule. We
recognise, however, that the most effective way of gaining our
freedom is not through violence. We will prepare ourselves by
withdrawing all voluntary association from the British
government, and will prepare for civil disobedience, including
non-payment of taxes. We are convinced that if we can but
withdraw our voluntary help and stop payment of taxes without
doing violence, even under provocation, the end of this inhuman
rule is assured.

Source 2
From: Tim Leadbeater, Britain and India, published in 2008. Here
he is commenting on the views of Lord Irwin in 1931.
Irwin rightly recognised the dangers of even larger and more
effective mass movements. He reported to the British
government that repression by force would only make matters
worse in the long run. Political dialogue was the only safe way
forward. He stated his view that ‘What is important is to make
perfectly plain to India that the ultimate purpose for her is not
one of perpetual subordination in a white Empire.’

Source 3
From: Lawrence James,The Rise and Fall of the British Empire,
published in 1994.
Even in the periods of intensive public protests in 1919 and
1930–4, it [Congress] had never come close to toppling the Raj
or even proving beyond doubt that India was ungovernable.
There were no more Amritsars, but the authorities managed to
keep the upper hand through mass arrests of leading party
activists, including Gandhi, and disorders were held in check by
the police with army help. With a loyal police force, the backing
of an army which numbered 194,000 in 1939, and a considerable
degree of determination among its officials, the Raj was able to
hang on without too much strain on its resources.

Use Sources 1, 2 and 3 and your own knowledge.

Do you agree with the view that Gandhi’s campaign methods in
the 1930s were effective? Explain your answer, using Sources 1, 2
and 3 and your own knowledge. (40 marks)
90 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Exam tips
The cross-references are intended to take you straight to the material
that will help you to answer the question.

You can use your own knowledge (see pages 61–6) in combination
with Source 1 to identify the key features of Gandhi’s campaign
methods at the beginning of the period:
• rejection of British rule
• civil disobedience campaign
• refusal to pay taxes and the associated challenge to the salt tax
• the Salt March
• non-violence
• mass demonstrations.

In order to consider the effectiveness of Gandhi’s methods, you can

use your own knowledge (see pages 61–79) in combination with
Source 2 to show: initial success, political concessions to Gandhi,
the Gandhi–Irwin pact and Gandhi’s participation in the round table
conference.
However, how much had been achieved by 1939? You can use
Source 3 and your own knowledge (pages 62–79) to consider
limitations to Gandhi’s achievements after 1931 and the continuing
extent of British control. You should also use your own knowledge of
the Government of India Act (pages 80–5) to consider the extent and
limitations of nationalist success by 1939.
Note, however, that in spite of the evidence in Source 3 that
disorder was contained during the 1930s and British control
maintained, the source refers to the British ‘hanging on’ to control,
which itself implies a considerable degree of challenge by 1939.
So, what is your conclusion? How effective were Gandhi’s
methods in the 1930s?
4 Quit India 1939–45

POINTS TO CONSIDER
The period covering the Second World War marks a crucial
change in Indian politics and in Indo-British relations.
Nationalists were increasingly angered by the attitude of
Churchill, the British wartime leader, who was utterly
opposed to further political progress for India. Congress
demanded that the British leave India immediately and
politicians were imprisoned for preparing civil disobedience
in wartime. Congress ordered a complete withdrawal from
government. This provided an opportunity for the Muslim
League to gain political prominence and appear more loyal.
The League adopted a call for a separate state for Muslims,
more at first as a way of strengthening their bargaining
position than a real plan. The end of war brought a sudden
realisation that the British could not hang on to India much
longer and planning for independence rapidly gathered
speed.
You should gain an understanding of:
• British fears and Churchill’s opposition
• The divergence of Congress and the Muslim League
• The role of the anti-British Indian National Army

Key dates
1939 September 3 Start of the Second World War
1940 March Lahore Resolution
August Offer of postwar settlement
1941 August Atlantic Charter supporting
self-government
1942 April Cripps mission
August 8 Quit India resolution
1943 Formation of the Indian National
Army
October Wavell appointed as viceroy
Suppression of political
campaigns
1943–4 Bengal famine
1945 June 25 Simla Conference
92 | Britain and India 1845–1947

1 | Patriotisms
The declaration of war Key question
On 3 September 1939, the British prime minister, Neville What did the
Chamberlain, declared war on Germany. On the same day the declaration of war
viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, announced to the Indian people that reveal?
they too were at war.

Key dates
It had been obvious that war was coming, which makes it all the Start of the Second
more surprising and significant that Linlithgow made his World War:
announcement without warning or consultation with Indian 3 September 1939
political leaders. The manner of the declaration was an affront to Lahore Resolution:
the self-respect of all Indians which lasted longer than the war. March 1940
Adding insult to injury, the key part of the statement, no doubt
intended to strike a resolute note, sounded completely
hypocritical to Indian ears. Linlithgow declared that:

confronted with the demand that she should accept the dictation of
a foreign power in relation to her own subjects, India has decided
to stand firm.

The British government, especially under the later leadership of

Winston Churchill, appeared oblivious to the contradiction of
fighting for liberty and democracy while attempting to thwart it
for India.

Indian reaction
Nevertheless, over two million Indians would join the armed
forces to fight for the cause. Gandhi, meeting Linlithgow on the
day after the announcement, was horrified by the idea of Britain
under threat. Both he and Jinnah agreed to halt all plans for
federation (as laid out in the 1935 Act). Consistent with his views,
Gandhi offered to meet Hitler on behalf of Britain to make
Key term
peace and advised the British that complete pacifism was Pacifism
desirable. Refusal to fight in
However, Nehru and Congress had consistently condemned wartime.
both fascism and British appeasement of it. They saw no need for
sentiment or lectures on loyalty. Linlithgow’s arrogant
announcement caused great resentment and eight of 11 Congress
ministers resigned.
In a pattern to be repeated, this simply provoked British
hostility and provided opportunities for Muslim leaders to gain
more influence and sympathy. Muslim leaders, for example,
declined to make a joint demand with Congress for an early
statement of British war aims, which would have forced the issue
of comparative liberty and democracy.

The Lahore Resolution Key question

Jinnah sensed that the tide was finally turning in favour of the How did Jinnah use
Muslim League with him in control. In January 1940 he wrote an the concept of
article arguing for a new constitution because: ‘There are in India nationhood?
two nations who both must share the governance of their
 Quit India 1939–45 | 93

common motherland’. He was deliberately raising the stakes by

referring to Muslims as a nation rather than a community.
In March 1940 the biggest meeting of the Muslim League so
far took place in Lahore. Sixty thousand gathered in a huge tent
in Minto Park to hear Jinnah, now dressed in traditional Muslim
style, demand the creation of Pakistan. In a significant analogy,
he compared the situation of Hindus and Muslims to the
relationship of the British and the Irish. He made the ringing
declaration that: ‘The Musulmans [Muslims] are not a minority.
The Musulmans are a nation by any definition.’
Following the logic of this definition, Jinnah demanded much
more than complicated voting arrangements for reserved seats.
The Muslim League meeting passed a resolution that:

geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions

which should be so constituted, with such territorial adjustments
as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are
numerically in a majority as in the north-western and eastern
zones of India should be grouped to constitute ‘independent
states’ in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and
sovereign.

Ambiguity
Key question
Did Jinnah really want The Lahore Resolution was powerfully unclear. It strengthened
Pakistan to be the unity of the Muslim movement even though it was interpreted
created? differently. Fazlul Huq, one of the drafters and the Muslim leader
in Bengal, regarded the phrase ‘independent states’ as meaning
two equal separations, one in the east – Bengal – and one in the
west – Pakistan. (This would indeed eventually come to pass in
1971.)
Jinnah, however, let it be known privately that he had only
intended two wings to one state. Similarly, the phrase territorial
adjustments was not intended to suggest any partition of any
province. Moreover, Jinnah also kept open the possibility that the
independent Muslim state(s) might still be part of an all-India
federal superstate.
The fact that Jinnah did not clarify this publicly until six years
later in the Delhi Resolution has raised questions for historians
about his true objectives. Jinnah was clearly a secular Muslim.
Indeed, he was regarded with suspicion by many Muslims. There
is some agreement among historians that he did not truly regard
a state based on a religious definition as a wise solution. It follows
that he was, like many a politician, arguing tactically for far more
than he really thought possible or desirable in order to achieve
more than a realistic demand would.
It would later become apparent that the Muslim League,
despite being a national organisation, was actually heavily reliant
on regional leaders, such as Huq in Bengal. They saw
opportunities in the Lahore Resolution to consolidate their power
and when the time was right even become national leaders of
separate states.
94 | Britain and India 1845–1947

The historian Ayesha Jalal has commented:

Jinnah’s appeal to religion was always ambiguous … evidence

suggests that his use of the communal factor was a political tactic,
not an ideological commitment. … Asserting that Muslims were a
nation avoided the logic of numbers.

The hostage theory

Hindu politicians attacked the resolution over the consequences
for the minorities left out. In the first place there were many
Muslims across India not in the concentrated areas of the north-
west and east. Was it expected that they would move to the new
states or would they become an even weaker minority in an
almost total Hindu state? Similarly, declaring the Muslims to be a
nation entitled to run their own country appeared to overlook the
presence of other religious and ethnic minorities within those
areas, notably Sikhs in the Punjab and Pathans in the North West
Frontier Province.

Key term
Jinnah’s response came to be known as the hostage theory. Hostage theory
This argued rather conveniently and implausibly that the Vulnerable
presence of residual minorities within both Hindu India and minorities in each
Muslim Pakistan(s) would force each majority to protect the rights country would
of the minorities within their country for fear of reprisals against ensure mutual
their co-religionists ‘left behind’ in the other country. protection.
Nehru denounced the Lahore Resolution as ‘fantastic’; Gandhi
called it ‘baffling’, a condescending dismissal since he too made
grand impractical demands as a political tactic.
The British kept quiet, regarding the increasing divergence
between Congress and the Muslim League as a helpful weakness
in the nationalist movement.

Churchill as prime minister Key question

In 1940 the war was looking disastrous: France had fallen, the What was Churchill’s
British army had narrowly escaped destruction during retreat attitude?
from Dunkirk and German Luftwaffe raids showed that the Battle
of Britain was underway. In this critical time, the British
government had reached for a new leader and turned to
obstinate maverick Winston Churchill.
Churchill’s reactionary views on India were well known. The
secretary of state for India, Lord Zetland, resigned immediately
recognising that his own views, including support for dominion
status, would no longer fit. However, it was Leo Amery, another
previous critic of Churchill, who was eventually persuaded to
become the new secretary, working to a brief of making only the
most limited concessions.
Congress attitudes had been hardening since the Linlithgow
announcement and the British refusal to state war aims. The
government was anxious about a resumption of civil disobedience
that might require deployment of precious armed forces and lead
to unrest within the forces themselves.
Accordingly, Amery attempted to clarify and settle matters by
announcing in the House of Commons that Indian constitutional
 Quit India 1939–45 | 95

reform would be resumed after the end of the war. Since this
implied nothing before the end of the war, it aroused little
support. Linlithgow himself suggested to the war cabinet a
slightly more specific offer of guaranteed steps towards dominion
status starting one year after the end of the war. The war cabinet
rejected it but with good sensitivity. The proposal promised an
outcome without involving Indians. The process would need a
constituent assembly for democratic approval. However, what this
also clearly implied even now was that Muslim demands for a
separate state would have to be considered seriously.

August 1940 offer

Churchill was personally against any sort of concession or
declaration but eventually permitted Linlithgow to announce in
August 1940 the idea of a postwar constitutional settlement.
Too little, too late again, this was rejected by Congress which
was looking beyond dominion status. Linlithgow warned the
provincial governments that he would crack down heavily on
Congress if it initiated civil disobedience which it duly did, calling
for individual actions again rather than a mass national
campaign.
Key dates

Offer of postwar Swathes of arrests followed and some 20,000 Indians were
settlement: August imprisoned within a year. Linlithgow asked for emergency powers
1940 to declare Congress an illegal, even potentially treasonable,
Formation of the organisation. Although Churchill refused, he liked Linlithgow’s
Indian National Army: hardline approach and asked him to continue as viceroy beyond
1943
the normal term of office.

Key question The Indian National Army

Were Indian National The question of treason was more stark in the case of the Indian
Army soldiers traitors National Army (INA). The INA was formed and led by Subhas
to the Empire or Chandra Bose. Bose had been a leading politician in Congress
freedom fighters? until Nehru was made president.
In 1941 Bose was under house arrest, having recently been
released from prison. He took the decision to leave India in order
to fight for its independence from abroad. He planned to recruit
an army of liberation and for this he was more than willing to
work with his enemy’s enemy, Nazi Germany. In disguise with
false papers at first, he was smuggled out to Afghanistan and then
travelled to Berlin.
In Germany, he met fascist leaders such as Ribbentrop and
Mussolini, recruited a few thousand Indian prisoners of war (out
of 17,000 in Europe) to his Indian legion and held marches
behind a newly designed flag. He established the Free India
Centre and made radio broadcasts in Indian languages. The
Nazis were more interested in this propaganda work than
unrealistic ideas about invading India.
Bose realised the situation after a personal meeting with Hitler
and took up the offer of submarine passage to Japan in 1943.
There he found the Japanese leader General Tojo more
supportive.
96 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Second World War propaganda cartoon. It is possible to identify three powers represented by
flags, dress or markings on aircraft. Judging by the script, to whom is the cartoon directed?

Bose meeting German leader Adolf Hitler in 1942. How might such a picture be used by the
British? How would Nehru have reacted?
 Quit India 1939–45 | 97

BHUTAN
NEPAL

Chinese counteroffensive

BRITISH Kohima
INDIA
Imphal

Japanese advance
Ar to 1944 with INA
Bay of a
Bengal
ka
n
Ri
dg
e

0 200 400
BURMA SIAM
km
Rangoon
Sites of battles
Limit of Japanese advance

Japanese advance in Burma, showing battles involving the INA in 1944.

Again Bose made propaganda broadcasts ending with the slogan

Dilli Chalo! (On to Delhi!), the cry of the mutineers in 1857. Across
the far east, Bose was able to recruit from two million Indian
prisoners of war. Ten thousand volunteered for the newly created
INA, although there are unresolved questions about the use of
torture on officers and others who might give financial support.

Action against the British

Eventually, the INA reached somewhere between 15,000 and
50,000, including a complete women’s regiment. They had a
headquarters in Rangoon, Burma, and were given the captured
Andaman Islands as independent Indian territory. They were sent
into action against the British at the battles of Arakan, Imphal
and Kohima. However, they were pitifully supplied and armed
and were decimated. Thousands surrendered then, with complete
surrender following the capture of Rangoon in 1945. Bose
escaped to the island of Taiwan, but died in an air crash.
Bose and the INA were never really a military danger, although
it turned out the British had underestimated their military
strength. The threat came from their power to provoke unrest
within India itself both during the war and afterwards, when the
question arose as to how to deal with captured INA soldiers.
98 | Britain and India 1845–1947

There is evidence that many soldiers joined up simply in order to

get out of prisoner of war camps, especially those run brutally by
the Japanese, and cross over to British forces as soon as they
could. Many were desperate to get back because of the famine
affecting Bengal from 1943 onwards.

Profile: Subhas Chandra Bose 1897–1945

1897 – Born in Cuttack, eastern India
1917 – Studied at Cambridge University
1924 – First imprisoned for three years
1928 – Created uniformed, armed Congress Volunteer Force
1930 – Mayor of Calcutta
1938 – President of Congress
1945 – Died in a plane crash while flying to Taiwan

Subhas Chandra Bose was proud of being born Bengali, Hindu

and Aryan and he enjoyed the experience of white servants at
Cambridge. Having been expelled for rebellion at school, he
refused to join the Indian Civil Service when he passed the
exams.
During the 1920s he visited Ireland and identified with the
Irish nationalist cause. In the early 1930s, Bose was imprisoned
without trial on suspicion of supporting revolutionaries.
Bose rose to prominence within Congress with further
honourable spells in prison. He was released in 1933 on
condition that he quit India. He travelled around Europe,
meeting leaders and studying politics.
After returning to India in 1936, Bose spent more time in
prison but also became mayor of Calcutta and, with Gandhi’s
support at first, president of Congress, despite disagreement with
Gandhi’s reactionary views on women, non-violent methods and
general lack of clarity. When Gandhi preferred Nehru, Bose was
sidelined and he formed the Forward Bloc to oppose mainstream
Congress.
Bose himself made no secret of his opposition to the racist
ideologies of the fascist regimes whose support he was seeking.
However, he was also happy to accept the luxurious lifestyle the
Nazis laid on for him.
Bose is now a national Indian hero, particularly in Bengal,
where Kolkatta International Airport is named after him. He
ranks alongside the Gujarati Gandhi and the Brahmin Kashmiri
Nehru as a patriot and creator of independence. Crucially, it is
seen in his favour that he actually tried to fight the British and is
not tarnished by the mess of partition.
Many Indians believe there was no aircrash in 1945. His life
and death are becoming the stuff of legend.
 Quit India 1939–45 | 99

Summary diagram: Patriotisms

Declaration of war

Lahore Resolution

Churchill’s August 1940 offer

Bose and INA

2 | Quit India Campaign

Key question The war situation
How did the USA At the start of 1942, although the threat of invasion had passed,
view the British the war was still going badly for the British. The country was on
Empire in India? rations, in blackout and under siege from submarines in the
Atlantic Ocean and Luftwaffe bombing, while British armies
continued to retreat in North Africa. Then came a series of major
losses in the east. The most traumatic was the surrender of the
fortress city of Singapore combined with the destruction of two
major battleships. Japanese armies swiftly occupied British
territory in Malaya and Burma. They were pressing at the north-
eastern border of India itself. It was quite possible that the mighty
British Empire would be conquered.
Churchill was acutely aware that Britain’s survival rested on the
strategic support of the United States. Although the USA did not
enter the war until December 1941, it had been providing
assistance to Britain by lending ships to get supplies across the
Atlantic. The US president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had from
the start argued with Churchill about the situation of India. It was
more than just a matter of protecting the military position by
avoiding unrest in India. It was the question of the purpose of the
war which Indian nationalists had themselves raised. In a sense,
Churchill was to find himself fighting a political war on two fronts
– in India and in the USA – even as the Allies planned the
opening of a second front against Germany through the invasion
of Europe.

The Atlantic Charter

Key date

Atlantic Charter In August 1941, Churchill and Roosevelt had agreed the basis of
supporting self- their cooperation in the Atlantic Charter which included support
government: for ‘sovereign rights and self-government’. The two interpreted
August 1941
this differently, however. Churchill regarded it as applying to
countries which had been conquered whereas the status quo would
apply to Britain and its empire. Roosevelt saw it as a fundamental
principle applying to all. Accordingly, he consistently pushed
100 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Churchill to make concessions to Indian nationalist demands – in

Roosevelt’s view to make progress, in Churchill’s view a form of
defeat.
In February 1942, Roosevelt used his personal envoy in Britain,
William Averell Harriman, to press Churchill about action on
India. Roosevelt was alarmed by the report of the Chinese
nationalist leader, Chiang Kai-Shek, who had toured India in
February 1942, that the British were in effect ‘presenting India to
the enemy and inviting them to quickly occupy [it]’. Roosevelt
warned Churchill that US soldiers in India would not assist the
British to hang on to their empire even if an Indian uprising led
to Japanese invasion and German and Japanese forces joining up
in the Middle East to create a global occupation.
In response, Churchill blustered about morale in the Indian
army and the danger of promises, but in March 1942 agreed that
the war cabinet should announce that the lord privy seal, Sir
Stafford Cripps, would be sent to India to discuss the implications
of the declaration on dominion status made in August 1940.

The Cripps mission Key question

Cripps travelled immediately to India and stayed throughout What was the
March meeting political representatives. His assessment was purpose of the Cripps
bleak: mission?

Key date
Unrest is growing amongst the population. The food situation is Cripps mission: April
causing disquiet. The outlook so far as the internal situation goes is 1942
exceedingly bad.

Cripps had two parts to his brief: first, to explain and win backing
for the August 1940 declaration by discussing the processes
necessary to bring about dominion status; second, to discuss
arrangements for the duration of the war on the basis of the 1935
Act with some minimal scope for additional Indian
representatives on the executive council.
On 29 March he announced the conclusions of his discussions
to a resounding lack of support, even from the British. Cripps
returned to Britain on 12 April and offered his resignation. He
was persuaded to withdraw it and Parliament debated his analysis
of the mission’s failure on 28 April.

Failure factors Key question

Cripps himself identified the key factors as the war situation, Why did the Cripps
including a defeatist attitude aggravated by enemy propaganda, mission fail?
together with Hindu–Muslim political antagonism. More
generally, the government projected the view that its generous
intentions had been repudiated out of hand. This rather
simplified the complicated responses, intrigues and mistakes
made by the various parties.
With regard to his first task, the postwar constitution, Cripps
had stuck to the British government position that when a
dominion constitution for a union of India was drawn up,
provinces would be free not to join the union. Such protection of
 Quit India 1939–45 | 101

this possibility at the outset was perceived by Congress as

tantamount to encouraging Muslim disengagement from
Congress and India itself. Indeed, at the press conference on
29 March 1942, Cripps discussed the possibility of two states, that
is India and Pakistan, and even suggested altering provincial
boundaries and the necessity of relocating masses of people. This
was the first time a British official had publicly acknowledged this
as a realistic consideration.
With regard to the second task, Cripps is criticised for going
beyond his brief. It is suggested that, in trying to gain backing for
the postwar processes, he was drawn into a proposal for an Indian
defence minister on the executive council, which antagonised the
viceroy, Linlithgow, and Churchill. The proposal was jointly made
by Cripps and Colonel Louis Johnson, a personal envoy of the
US president. Roosevelt had already proposed an immediate
temporary dominion government on 10 March, saying:

Such a move is in line with the world changes of the past half-
century and the democratic processes of all who are fighting
Nazism.

These interventions were perceived by the British as distrustful

and meddlesome. They increased resistance if anything.
Linlithgow already had Churchill’s support because of his hard-
line approach and the war cabinet backed Linlithgow’s view that
the powers of the viceroy were laid out in the 1935 Act and
should not be tinkered with. In truth, the fact that Linlithgow had
not been himself briefed about the Cripps mission virtually
ensured that he and Cripps would be at loggerheads. This lends
support to the view that Churchill had always regarded the
mission as a way of placating the Americans and tarnishing the
reputation of Cripps, who might be regarded as a political rival.

Congress rejection
Congress formally rejected the proposals on 10 April. There was
little for them to support: the sole concession to them of the
defence minister had been blocked, the princely states had been
allowed to select rather than elect future representatives, while
both the states and Muslims appeared to have gained the right to
stay out of a future union of India completely. Moreover,
Congress saw no point in rushing to agree if the deteriorating war
situation would force the British to offer more later. Gandhi
famously described the proposals as ‘an undated cheque on a
crashing bank’.
Although most observers saw Cripps as favouring Congress, the
lack of engagement by Congress politicians again created
opportunities for Muslims to bolster their position. The Muslim
League was increasingly confident in challenging Congress’ claim
to represent all Indian opinion.
Churchill, Linlithgow and Amery all saw this as a helpful
weakening of Congress and an excuse to postpone matters while
there was such disagreement. Churchill maintained that the
102 | Britain and India 1845–1947

British had done what they could and, indeed, US, Chinese and
even Labour Party demands for progress diminished in the face
of Congress’ apparent ingratitude.

Quit India
The failure of the Cripps mission put negotiation over
Key question
constitutional reform back in the drawer for the duration. What effect did the
Accordingly, both sides saw this as the opportunity to harden failure of the Cripps
their approaches still further. mission have?
Linlithgow increased press censorship while using more

Key term
centralised Special Branch surveillance to intercept Congress For the duration
communications. He ordered a search for information to allow Became a common
him to suggest that Congress was pro-Nazi. phrase to describe
Gandhi declared that Britain was unable to defend India but the unknown length
Indians should prepare a defence strategy of peaceful non- of the war.
cooperation. He argued that, since Japan’s hostility was directed
at the British Empire, as soon as it was a free nation India would
be able to negotiate peace with Japan. Congress declined to agree
and Nehru, in particular, rejected any cooperation with a fascist
power. In fact, Gandhi was ever more drawn to an unrealistic
vision of ideal village life in a country withdrawn from the world.
In his words: ‘Leave India to God. If that is too much, then leave
her to anarchy.’
By summer 1942, the government was aware through intercepts
that a renewed campaign of civil disobedience was being planned.
Linlithgow made plans to arrest the entire Congress leadership
and deport them to Uganda while Gandhi would be sent to Aden.
The plan was dropped when the governor of Aden objected and
a lawyer pointed out that the power of arrest would lapse on
board ship.
Nevertheless the war cabinet authorised Linlithgow to take all
necessary measures after a further secret report revealed details of
how the campaign would start with strikes and destruction of
communications and railways. By now, the British government
feared an uprising along the lines of the Easter Rising in Ireland
in 1916, during the First World War, but on a massive scale.

The Quit India resolution

On 8 August 1942, the All-India Congress Committee met in
Key date

Gowalia Tank park, Bombay, and resolved: Quit India resolution:

8 August 1942
to sanction, for the vindication of India’s inalienable right to
freedom and independence, the starting of a mass struggle on
non-violent lines on the widest possible scale … every man and
woman who is participating in the movement must function for
himself or herself within the four corners of the general instructions
issued.

Gandhi declared it the moment to ‘Do or die for nothing less

than freedom’ and called bluntly for the British to ‘Quit India’,
which became the popular reference for the resolution.
 Quit India 1939–45 | 103

British crackdown
Key question
How did the British Using a codeword, the viceroy ordered provincial governors to
respond? put into action prearranged plans for suppressing the civil
disobedience campaign, overriding the opposition of the
executive council. Congress leaders across India were arrested in
morning raids. The Congress working committee was imprisoned
in Ahmedanagar Fort near Bombay, but its members were allowed
to meet freely and so continued political discussions. Gandhi was
detained in the Aga Khan’s palace at Poona (Pune) where he
found that goats (to provide milk) had been positioned ready for
his arrival.
Among the general population, matters were far less pleasant.
The initial Delhi hartal resulted in arson and the killing of 14
people by police. The leader of the Congress Socialist Party
planned to seize Delhi in a guerrilla war, calling on US soldiers to
support them. Unrest, arson and sabotage grew in mostly Hindu
areas such as Bihar, United Provinces, Bombay, Rajputana.
In response the police shot on sight those breaking curfew, and
conducted public whippings; women were beaten with lathis and
there were allegations of rape in custody. As violence escalated
policemen were burned to death while the British burned whole
villages and used aircraft to machine gun crowds. Hundreds were
killed and about 500 arrested without trial and denied visits.

Emergency powers
In New Delhi, the Revolutionary Movement Ordinance was
implemented, struck down by the courts and reissued with
dismissively slight amendments by the government. Linlithgow
was determined to crack down and was oblivious to the mounting
evidence that maintaining British order was more important than
the British rule of law.
Meanwhile, Churchill and Linlithgow were all but competing
for self-importance and self-justification. Churchill declared
defiantly:

I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside on

the liquidation of the British Empire.

Privately, Linlithgow had already said:

I do not think it is to exaggerate to affirm that the key to success in

this war is now very largely in my hands.

Now he reported to the British government:

I am engaged here in meeting by far the most serious rebellion

since that of 1857, the gravity and extent of which we have so far
concealed from the world for reasons of military security. Mob
violence remains rampant over large tracts of the countryside.
104 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Suppression
By the end of 1942, the British had managed to suppress the Key question
What was the effect
Quit India movement, using 57 infantry battalions to restore of suppression on
order. In the process, it was not only lives, liberties and homes respect for the
which had been lost. The British had lost their moral authority British?
within India and with American public opinion which once again

Key date
saw the British as more interested in preserving their empire than Suppression of
defeating the common enemies of democracy. political campaigns:
1943
Matters remained tense. The Indian members of the executive
council all resigned while Gandhi declared from his palace-prison
that he would undertake a three-week fast in February 1943. Even
as his health declined, Churchill called him fake. Linlithgow
announced that he would not submit to ‘blackmail and terror’
and made preparations to deal with Gandhi’s death. As a result of
personal pleas, Gandhi called off his fast in March.
But time was also being called on the Linlithgow era.

Public transport was a favourite target during the Quit India protests. To what extent might this be
described as rioting?
 Quit India 1939–45 | 105

Summary diagram: Quit India campaign

Cripps mission Congress rejection

Quit India resolution

Linlithgow crackdown
Planned civil disobedience

Key question 3 | Viceroy Wavell

Why was Wavell Churchill had twice extended Linlithgow’s term of office, largely
chosen as the new
viceroy? to maintain the suppression of the Quit India civil disobedience
movement. Now that was under control, there was no good
reason to postpone the choice of a new viceroy. Both Leo Amery,
the secretary of state for India, and Clement Attlee, the Labour
Party leader (and future prime minister), were considered. In the
end, however, Churchill settled on a military figure, Archibald
Wavell, the commander-in-chief of India.
The choice is revealing of Churchill’s priorities. At first sight,
it suggested the continuation of a hard line driven by military

Cartoon showing
Viceroy Wavell’s
arrival in India. What
relationship is
suggested between
the man and woman
(princess) by the
man’s outfit? Who is
controlling the
elephant? How is
Jinnah portrayed?
106 | Britain and India 1845–1947

considerations. Another view is that confidence in Wavell had

fallen and the ‘promotion’ to viceroy was a useful way of putting
the more inspiring Auchinleck in his place as commander-in-
chief. This would also suggest that political skills and experience
were not sought in the viceroy, either because he would be closely
controlled from Britain or because it was simply not recognised
that political negotiation would be urgent and important.

Profile: Lord Wavell 1883–1950

1883 – Born in Colchester
1901 – Saw action in South Africa
1914–16 – Fought on the Western Front in France during the
First World War
1941 – Allied commander of the south-west Pacific
1950 – Died

Archibald (Archie) Wavell was a career soldier and, at the start of

the Second World War, commander-in-chief in the Middle East.
He managed to defeat the Italian invasion of Egypt and Ethiopia
but was later defeated by the Germans in North Africa. As allied
commander in the south-west Pacific he was in command when
Malaya and Burma fell to the Japanese. Up to this point the
Allies had not secured any victories. However, Wavell had
acquired something of the image of the wrong person at the
wrong time. More objectively, he worked practically to end the
Bengal famine and determinedly to make political progress
despite procrastination in Britain. He has been described as ‘a
great man for solutions’.

Indian situation
Wavell took over an India which was paying vast sums towards the
war effort. Britain was promising to repay afterwards but the total
in 1943 was already £800 million, an amount that it was
inconceivable Britain could actually repay.
Amery, commenting in his diary on Churchill’s stated dislike of
Indians, said:

We are getting out of India far more than was ever thought possible
and … India herself is paying far more than was ever contemplated.

Wavell, having been based in India, came to the job better

prepared than most viceroys. However, he came to London to
meet political leaders. He soon realised that Churchill was paying
lip service to the idea of political progress in India and that he
had little awareness of the situation. He commented:

He hates India and everything to do with it and as Amery said in a

note he pushed across to me ‘knows as much of the Indian
problem as George III did of the American colonies’.
 Quit India 1939–45 | 107

On returning to India, Wavell was told by Linlithgow that Britain

would have to ‘continue responsibility for India for at least
another 30 years’.
Key dates

Wavell appointed as Wavell became viceroy in October 1943 and, despite his
viceroy: October 1943 experience, set about extending his knowledge and consultation.
Bengal famine: He travelled round the country, sometimes up to 1500 km per
1943–4 week, and convened regular meetings of the 11 provincial
governors. (Linlithgow had not held one such meeting in his
seven years.)
Wavell worked hard for India. His military training and lack of
political experience proved useful in two key areas during his
relatively short period of office. First, his response to a
devastating famine in Bengal was practical and blunt. Second, he
insisted on consideration of the details of the future boundaries
of India and Pakistan in order to be prepared.

Key question The Bengal famine

What was Wavell’s The situation in Bengal was critical. The two harvests of 1942 and
attitude to the Bengal 1943 had been low, the latter the worst of the century. This was
famine? aggravated by shortage of other foods and reduced imports
because of the war and poor organisation of food distribution
within the province. As a result of widespread malnutrition,
people were dying more quickly of pneumonia, cholera and
malaria. The death rate had risen by half as much again. In all, it
is estimated that the famine itself caused between one and three
million deaths.
Once the famine started to affect the major cities of Dacca and
Calcutta, the concern became national (even international by
assisting recruitment to the INA). It is much to Wavell’s credit
that he took a primarily humanitarian view that lives should be
saved. However, he no doubt realised the political danger of
doing little or nothing while trying to uphold the Churchillian
view that British administration was good for India. Jinnah
accused the British of incompetence and contempt on the
grounds that such a crisis would not have been neglected in
Britain itself.

Wavell’s actions
Wavell immediately ordered military assistance for the
distribution of food, in other words diverted soldiers from the war
effort and defence of India. He introduced rationing and control
of panic-buying and profiteering.
Politically, Wavell demanded the appointment of a governor for
Bengal, a post which had been left vacant for no good reason. In
Britain, he had to struggle against the view of Lord Cherwell,
economic adviser to Churchill, that the famine was statistically
improbable and with Churchill’s own reluctance to spare any
merchant ships to transport grain. Even the United States refused
to divert any of its ships to Australia to bring in grain. However,
Wavell eventually got twice what was originally promised, perhaps
because it was half what he had asked for.
108 | Britain and India 1845–1947

By mid-1944, the situation was coming under control but Wavell

stated to Amery that

The Bengal famine was one of the greatest disasters that has
befallen any people under British rule and has done great damage
to our reputation here.

Looking for initiative

Key question
It was also clear in the summer of 1944 that the war was being What were the
won. The D-day landings had successfully launched the Allied prospects for political
liberation of Europe, the Soviets were throwing the Germans back progress?
on the Eastern Front and the Americans were recapturing, with
more difficulty, the Pacific islands. On the borders of India, the
battles of Imphal and Kohima had decisively broken the threat of
Japanese invasion. With military victory in sight, it was clear that
pressure would resume for discussion of the postwar political
situation.
In August 1944 Wavell brought the provincial governors
together for a conference to consider the political future. Some
new factors could be foreseen: the war debt continued to mount
as would calls for repayment to benefit India and Indians; the
Indian civil service had been strained by the war and hundreds of
thousands of soldiers, both British and Indian, would be
impatient to be demobbed and return home although there
would not be enough employment to keep them busy.
The governors were ‘emphatically of the opinion’ that a
positive initiative should be made by the British before the actual
end of the war. The governor of Bengal proposed the unequivocal
declaration of an actual departure date.

British attitudes
The problem was the attitude and interference of the British
government and of Churchill, in particular. The government had
raised the wages of Indian soldiers without consultation with the
Indian government, adding more than £50 million per year to
the war debt. On the other hand, Wavell’s request for an Indian
finance minister on the executive council was rejected. All Wavell’s
letters to Gandhi, in prison again in India, had to be sent to
London first for discussion by the war cabinet.
Churchill simply wanted to do nothing. Far from concession,
Churchill angrily declared that Britain was under ‘no obligation
to honour promises made at a time of difficulty’. While the war
was on Churchill saw the importance of keeping up morale,
although that did not hinder the suppression of the Quit India
movement. With peace in sight, however, there was will neither to
keep enough British soldiers in India to maintain order nor to
supply money to create Indian forces. Indeed, ships and food
were already being prioritised for the rebuilding of Europe.

Initiative stalled
In November 1944 Wavell requested consideration of a political
initiative. For five months, the war cabinet put off responding and
 Quit India 1939–45 | 109

eventually left it to the India Committee to reject Wavell’s request

for any initiative. Wavell protested and was invited to London in
March 1945 to make the case. He told Churchill that unrest was
again growing and ‘the present government of India cannot
continue indefinitely or even for very long’. He declared:

I feel very strongly that the future of India is the problem on which
the British Commonwealth and the British reputation will stand or
fall in the postwar period.

The trouble was that, while Churchill also saw it in terms of

reputation, he was adamant that he would not go down in history
as the prime minister who gave India away. Events would soon
take that possibility away.
Wavell requested a summary of the India Committee’s
discussion in order to answer its concerns. The request was
refused. The war cabinet stated that a precondition for progress
was that Congress should officially declare the Quit India
movement over. Wavell advised against stirring up what was
already finished.
While Wavell was kept waiting in London for a decision, the
economic adviser John Maynard Keynes presented the war
cabinet with a financial analysis that showed that running the
British Empire had cost £1000 million for each of the past two
years, rising postwar to £1400 million per year. In sum, without
US financial assistance, Britain would go bankrupt.
In the same month, April 1945, Roosevelt died. He had been a
loyal but critical friend of the British when defeat had seemed
possible. Now, a new president might not be so tolerant of British
problems of their own making. Churchill’s mind too was on
managing victory parades with a view to the first general election
in Britain since 1935. Almost as a way of getting Wavell out of his
sight, Churchill agreed to a national conference of Indian
political leaders. Wavell departed for India commenting that it
was in effect too little too late yet again.

The 1945 Simla Conference

Key date

Simla Conference: Wavell moved swiftly to make the conference happen. He released
25 June 1945 the Congress working committee from prison and ignored the
rejection of the initiative by the executive council. The new
members appointed because of Congress resignations could
clearly see that their wartime support for the British would be
swept aside by a resurgent nationalist movement.
The conference opened in the summer capital of Simla on 25
June 1945 with delegates from Congress, the Muslim League and
others, both radical and loyalist. Wavell was exasperated by the
assumption that votes around the table would be an acceptable
way to make decisions about India’s future.
The conference foundered quickly on refusals and rejections in
creating a new Council, although Amery accepted that the delay
in agreeing to even holding a conference had stoked up
resentments.
110 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Jinnah (left) and

Gandhi (right) during
unsuccessful
negotiations in 1944.
What relationship
does the body
language seek to
portray and reveal?

Jinnah refused to accept the legitimacy of Muslims who were not

members of the Muslim League. The president of Congress was
still Maulana Azad, still snubbed by Jinnah as a token Muslim in a
Hindu organisation. Wavell had similar concerns about Congress,
but he also refused to accept that the Muslim League was the only
representative organisation of Muslims.
The governors of the Punjab and of Bengal advised Wavell to
set out the consequences of creating a Pakistan in order to test
the true strength of Jinnah’s support in these two crucial
provinces with their own local Muslim leaders.
Instead, Wavell proposed an Interim Council, with a
membership list drawn up by himself. This was rejected by
Jinnah, who sensed his growing popular strength with every
refusal to compromise.
The conference broke up and shortly afterwards the political
landscape was itself shattered. In July 1945, the British electorate
voted unsentimentally to throw out Churchill, the great wartime
leader, in favour of the socialist Attlee at the head of a Labour
government committed to radical social reform. The omens for
Indian nationalism had never looked better.
 Quit India 1939–45 | 111

Nehru (left) and

Jinnah (right) during
the Simla Conference
1945. What do the
different styles of
dress suggest?

Summary diagram: Viceroy Wavell

Bengal famine

Stalling

1945 Simla Conference

British general election

112 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Study Guide: AS Question

In the style of Edexcel

Source 1
From: Patrick French, Liberty or Death, published in 1997.
Events in East Asia during the early months of 1942 changed the
complexion of Indian politics for good. In February the imperial
fortress of Singapore surrendered to the Japanese without a shot
being fired, through a combination of incompetence and poor
planning, and the competing military demands of the war in
Europe. It was a monumental blow to Britain’s prestige in Asia,
and led to the development of popular feeling in India that their
British rulers were no longer invincible.

Source 2
From: a Japanese cartoon, published c.1942, urging Indians to
throw off British rule. The caption reads ‘All British colonies are
awake. Why must Indians stay slaves? Seize this chance, rise!’
 Quit India 1939–45 | 113

Source 3
From: Niall Ferguson, Empire, published in 2003.
Events in India [during the Second World War] revealed the
weakness of the nationalist movement and the resilience of the
Raj. The viceroy announced India’s entry into the war without a
word of consultation with the leaders of Congress. The ‘Quit
India’ campaign launched in 1942 was snuffed out within six
weeks by arresting Gandhi and the campaign’s other leaders,
censoring the press and reinforcing the police with troops.
Congress split, with only a minority led by Bose choosing to side
with the Japanese. And even his Indian National Army proved of
little military value. It turned out that the only serious threat to the
British in India were the Japanese divisions in Burma; and the
Indian army defeated them at Imphal (March–June 1944).

Use Sources 1, 2 and 3 and your own knowledge.

Do you agree with the view that there was little change to
British power in India during the Second World War?
Explain your answer, using Sources 1, 2 and 3 and your own
knowledge. (40 marks)

Exam tips
The cross-references are intended to take you straight to the material
that will help you to answer the question.

The following points can be found in the sources; how will you group
them? What key phrases or, in the case of Source 2, what parts of
the image, will you use to make these points? Where there is a
chapter page reference, you can also add your own knowledge to
develop or counter these points:

• The nationalist movement had weaknesses.

• British power was able to ‘snuff out’ the Quit India campaign
quickly (pages 102–4).
• The Raj was resilient and able to withstand challenge
(pages 103–10).
• Congress split.
• The surrender of Singapore to the Japanese was a huge blow to
Britain’s prestige.
• The surrender of Singapore encouraged a feeling in India that the
British could be defeated.
• The Japanese attempted to incite the people of India to throw off
British rule.
• Only a minority of Indians chose to side with the Japanese.
• Bose’s Indian National Army was not a serious military threat
(page 97).
• The Japanese forces in Burma were a threat to British power in
India.
• The Indian army defeated Japanese divisions at Imphal (page 97).
114 | Britain and India 1845–1947

From your own knowledge you can also include the following
additional points. How will you organise them?
• The period of the Second World War marked a crucial change in
Indo-British relations (pages 92–108); the influence of the USA
encouraged sovereign rights and self-government in India
(pages 99–100); the August 1940 statement offered postwar
dominion status (page 95).
• But Winston Churchill was opposed to concessions to Indian
nationalism (page 95); the failure of the Cripps mission (page 100)
marked the end of negotiations for constitutional reform for the
duration of the war (page 101).
• Wavell’s view in 1944 was that the present form of government in
India could not continue for long (page 109); the end of the war
brought the realisation that British could not hang on to power in
India much longer (pages 109 and 116).

What is your overall conclusion? The Japanese threat was defeated

and no new constitution for India was put in place during the war.
But had key changes which affected British power in India
nevertheless taken place during the war?
5 Independence and
Partition 1945–7

POINTS TO CONSIDER
The surprise election of a Labour government in Britain at
the end of the war ensured that independence would be
granted to India. A new, but final, viceroy, Lord Mountbatten,
was appointed with instructions to accomplish this swiftly.
However, relations between Congress and the Muslim
League were breaking down so badly that this was not so
easy to do. Communal violence increased relentlessly as
the self-declared deadline approached for the British to
depart. Although many had assumed that the borders
between India and Pakistan were a formality, once
independence arrived, it suddenly mattered enormously to
people which side they were on, particularly in the divided
Punjab. Terrible massacres took place among the hundreds
of thousands trying to get across the border one way or
another. The largest peacetime transfer of power in history
ended in conflict and bloodshed amongst the winners.
This chapter examines in more detail:
• Negotiating positions around the demand for Pakistan
• British attempts to create plans for independence and
partition
• Communal violence and partition massacres
• Resolution of the final relations with the independent
princely rulers

Key dates
1945 May British general election
August 9 End of the Second World War
1946 Indian general election
April Cabinet mission
May Simla Conference
May Cabinet mission’s May statement
August 16 Direct action day
September 2 Interim government took power
December 7 Constituent assembly convened
1947 March 22 Mountbatten became last viceroy
March Congress accepted Pakistan
demand
May 3 Plan Balkan
116 | Britain and India 1845–1947

May 10 Mountbatten showed Nehru Plan

Balkan at Simla
June 3 Announcement of final plan for
independence and partition
July 4 Independence of India Act
July 8 Territorial partition work began
July 19 Interim government split
1948 Deaths of Gandhi and Jinnah
1950 January 26 India became a republic

1 | Options Key question

The new Labour government voted into power in Britain in May What were the aims
and concerns of the
1945 was determined to press ahead with political reform in India
Labour government in
and there was optimism among nationalist leaders that progress relation to India?
towards independence would quicken.
The two main aims were to revive democratic politics by

Key dates
holding elections for the 11 British provincial councils and the British general
central assemblies and to form an (unelected) group to start work election: May 1945
on a new constitution. End of the Second
There was some concern among the British in India that the World World:
British government was not sufficiently aware of the scale of 9 August 1945
support for the Pakistan movement and that elections would
provide a huge boost to the campaign. Nehru had said that he
would not work with the Muslim League while Jinnah was
strengthening the demand for Pakistan.

Fear of unrest
Viceroy Wavell was worried that Labour was too eager to hand
over power to Congress, which would further raise the anxieties
of the Muslim League. He was acutely aware of the potential for
unrest – from food and coal shortages as much as anything – and
the weakness of the British situation if the revival of politics led to
renewed civil disobedience.
At the end of the war in August 1945 there were about
50,000 soldiers available in India (that is just one for every 8000
civilians) but, tired after the war, they were eager to be
Key term

demobilised and return to their homes, whether Indian or Demobilised

British. It was inconceivable that extra troops would be sent. Released from the
Moreover, any state of emergency would itself be more serious armed forces.
than ever before because of the widespread availability of
unreturned weapons.
Wavell wrote to the new secretary of state for India, Freddie
Pethick-Lawrence, in November 1945:

We are now faced in India with a situation of great difficulty and

danger … I must warn His Majesty’s Government to be prepared
for a serious attempt by the Congress, probably next spring, but
quite possibly earlier to subvert by force the present administration
in India … the choice will lie between capitulating to Congress and
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 117

accepting their demands and using all our resources to suppress

the movement.

Courts martial and mutinies

The British did not help the situation by their handling of the
defeated Indian National Army (INA). It became clear that
Indians generally supported the captured soldiers. Congress
called for their release, declaring:

it would be a tragedy if these officers, men and women were

punished for the offence of having laboured, however mistakenly,
for the freedom of India.

The British officer class nevertheless still wanted to make the

point that the INA were traitors and court-martialled a sample of
three senior officers, deliberately choosing a Hindu, a Muslim
and a Sikh. This simply united the three communities and their
leaders in opposition. The officers were convicted of waging war
against the Crown, a charge carrying a potential death penalty.
They were actually sentenced to transportation for life, but then
this was abandoned and they were released in case the general
mood in the Indian army turned angry.
There were mutinies in February 1946 (and indeed there was
unrest among British troops unhappy about the slow pace of
demobilisation). A total of 20,000 sailors from the Royal Indian
Navy in Bombay, then Calcutta and Karachi, took over nearly
80 ships and a general strike was called by the Bombay
Communist Party. However, Congress leaders persuaded the
mutineers to surrender. This angered many supporters but the
leadership of both Congress and the Muslim League saw more
advantage for the moment in cooperating with the British than
in resistance.

Preparation for partition

It was apparent to nationalist leaders that the British were now
serious about quitting India, which meant gauging the strength of
the demand for Pakistan. In January 1946, a small fact-finding
visit of British MPs came and went without announcing their
conclusions, but in private some stated that Pakistan must be
conceded to avoid Muslim unrest. In secret, work began on
deciding how the country could be partitioned. Viceroy Wavell
was keenly interested in making practical preparations for the
eventual unpleasantness of announcing the actual boundary lines.
It was immediately apparent that the Punjab would be a
flashpoint split between a Muslim-west and Hindu-east but with
five million Sikhs spread throughout. The Sikh holy city of
Amritsar was surrounded by a Muslim-majority area, potentially
Key date

Indian general cut off in a future Pakistan.

election: spring 1946 Meanwhile, British and Indian politicians were waiting to see
how the land lay after the Indian general election in the spring of
1946.
118 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Elections
The message of the election results in the 11 British provinces
Key question
What did the election
was even greater polarisation of support. In overall terms, results show?
Congress won a convincing victory with 90 per cent of seats.
However, the Muslim League won 75 per cent of all Muslim votes,
took 90 per cent of the seats reserved for Muslims in the
provinces and all 30 Muslim seats in the central assembly.
Congress was shocked to realise that it would have to face up to
the Muslim League and their Pakistan campaign.
Congress formed provincial governments in eight provinces,
the Muslim League formed two, in Bengal and Sind, while a non-
Muslim coalition took power in Punjab, even though the Muslim
League had the largest number of votes and took 75 of the 88
Muslim seats.
A more subtle message was that Muslims had voted most
strongly for the League in Muslim-minority provinces that could
never realistically be part of Pakistan. They appeared to support
the idea of a separate Muslim state as a haven to which they
might move. In the areas which were already Muslim-majority,
there appeared to be more interest and confidence in
maintaining local power.
In Bengal, for example, Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, the local
Muslim League leader, tried to form a regional coalition with
Congress in order to campaign for a united, and possibly
independent, Bengal. In Sind province, a breakaway group
formed a minority government with the aim of an independent
mini-Pakistan. In the North West Frontier Province, the Pathan
tribes were not League supporters and Congress held power in
this far-flung area beyond the Muslim belt.

The cabinet mission

Key question
In order to push forward with Labour’s second aim – the drafting How did the British
of a new constitution – Prime Minister Clement Attlee gained prepare for a new
cabinet agreement for another mission to India. It was widely constitution?
expected that this new peacetime mission, from a socialist
government which clearly intended to honour promises of
independence, ought to be successful. In fact, in the words of
Woodrow Wyatt, a Labour MP:

they tried to give away an Empire but found their every suggestion
for doing it frustrated by the intended recipients.

An official document of the time said that the formal brief was to
consult about the:

setting up of machinery whereby the forms under which India can

realise her full independent status can be determined by Indians …
with the minimum of disturbance and the maximum of speed.

The confidential brief was not just to listen but to create positive
desire for a speedy transfer of power.
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 119

The mission, including 11 civil servants, was nominally headed by

the secretary of state, Freddie Pethick-Lawrence, an ageing and
genial socialist, but was driven by Stafford Cripps, now president
of the board of trade in the cabinet, seeking to reverse the
embarrassing failure of his 1942 mission. The third man was
A.V. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty, but actually a very
traditional Labour politician.
Key date

Cabinet mission: April The mission met Indian politicians on 1 April 1946 and invited
1946 the various leaders to state their demands or aspirations.
Gandhi argued defiantly for power to be transferred to
Congress, as the election winners, to make decisions about and
for India.
Jinnah recognised that there was no hope of Pakistan from an
independent Congress-dominated India. It could only come into
existence from a British decision. The British needed Muslim
cooperation in order to avoid disorder and present an agreed
peaceful transfer to the world. So Jinnah avoided confrontation
and waited. Gandhi made a wily suggestion that Jinnah form the
government balanced by a Hindu majority in the central
assembly, prompting Wavell to observe that ‘he is a tough
politician and not a saint’.
Meanwhile, there was no Sikh representative and little attention
paid to this vulnerable minority. Similarly, the position of the
princely states was ignored. They had treaties with Britain which

Illingworth cartoon.
Who might the three
humans represent?
Why is the middle
figure wearing a boy’s
sailor’s outfit? Why
are the others
dressed as public
schoolboys? What is
the figure on the left
holding? What does
the cartoon predict
for their future?
120 | Britain and India 1845–1947

could not force them to become part of an independent India. In

theory, they had the right to remain as autonomous petty states
scattered across India.
The behaviour of the British delegation was counter-
productive. Pethick-Lawrence wanted Indian independence so
much that he left the British no bargaining power. He tended to
agree with every demand, earning him the secret nickname
Pathetic Lawrence. Cripps, meanwhile, enjoyed holding secret
meetings but then made no secret of his closeness to Gandhi,
attending prayer meetings and being sent daily yogurt.

The Simla Conference 1946 Key question

In May 1946, Indian political leaders were invited to Simla for a Why did the cabinet
conference to discuss the two constitutional options drawn up by mission plan fail?
the cabinet mission and approved by the full British cabinet.
Wavell joined the three-man delegation to form the British

Key date
party with four representatives each from Congress and the Simla Conference:
Muslim League. The mood was not good. Jinnah refused to speak May 1946
to Maulana Azad, one of the two Muslim Congress
representatives. Gandhi, although not formally involved, turned
up on a special train to announce that he would block any moves
towards partition.
The first, preferred option attempted to be imaginative and
flexible. It proposed a single state with a three-tier constitutional
structure:
• a minimal ‘union government’, responsible for foreign affairs,
defence and communication
• self-selected regional groupings of provinces exercising all other
governmental powers
• the existing provinces.
More controversially, it was proposed that the regional groupings Key terms
might be permitted after a period of time to secede from the Secede
original union by means of plebiscites to become independent Peacefully break
states. away from a state.
The second, fall-back option was the first formal proposal of a
Plebiscite
two-state outcome: Hindustan and Pakistan. The two states would
A vote of the whole
conclude formal treaties with each other but would have no
population on
common government.
constitutional
The hope was that Congress would recoil from the second
issues.
option and support the first. It had the attraction of producing a
Congress-dominated single state but they would have to accept Hindustan
the right of provincial groupings to secede. Literally the land
On the other side, although the Muslim League would beyond the Indus
obviously prefer the second option, they might be persuaded to (coming from the
accept the first if they were confident that sustained demand for west) – an Arab or
Pakistan would allow it to emerge democratically. Mughal perspective.
The British cabinet was concerned about the viability of a
Pakistani state in itself as well as the effect of splitting the Indian
armed forces. There is, however, some evidence that the British
regarded a future Pakistan as more loyal to British strategic
interests in central Asia than a future India (see page 148).
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 121

In the end, perhaps predictably, Congress could not give its

support to either option since they could both lead, sooner or
later, to partition. After two full sessions of the conference, with no
prospect of agreement, Pethick Lawrence wound up proceedings.
With hindsight, historians have speculated about the role of the
failing health of Jinnah. Jinnah’s public stance of waiting until
people came round to the idea of Pakistan was at odds with his
personal fear that he did not have long to live. He wanted to see
Pakistan born before he died and he wanted to be its first leader.
He could not afford to wait another ten years or more for
plebiscites to take place.
If Congress and the British had known how seriously ill he was,
they might have been tempted to slow down and wait for him to
die in the hope that the momentum would go out of the Pakistan
movement. It is one of the great ‘might have been’ questions of
the period.

Key question The May statement

How did the British Having failed to reach agreement in the Simla conferences, the
move on from the cabinet mission moved matters on by making a declaration of
Simla failure? intent, leaving it up to the various Indian parties to agree or not.
They announced that they would create a constituent assembly
Key term

Constituent of elected representatives from the 11 British provinces. The

assembly assembly would draft a constitution for the single state with
A parliament with regional groupings.
the sole task of Congress declined to accept the May statement. However, on 6
designing a June, the Muslim League did accept it and Jinnah spoke publicly
constitution. to emphasise the personal compromise he had made in accepting
the right of a constituent assembly to decide about Pakistan.
Key date

Cabinet mission, May The cabinet mission further announced that it would create an
statement: May 1946 interim government composed entirely of Indians, with the
exception of Wavell as governor-general. However, this plan got
stuck on the proportions of members for different communities.
Jinnah insisted on choosing all the Muslim representatives, while
Congress insisted on being able to choose Muslims for the
Congress section. A Sikh and a Christian representative were
added, followed by a Dalit and then a Parsi.
As time moved on, a further (June) statement announced that
the viceroy would select members for any group which did not
immediately accept the May statement.

Congress counter-interpretation
Key question On 24 June Congress suddenly announced a partial acceptance of
What were the
political effects of the May statement. They were clearly seeking to avoid being
upholding Congress’ excluded but they also proposed a counter-interpretation of the
counter- groupings plan. They argued that if groupings could secede from
interpretation? the nation-state, then individual provinces could opt out of
regional groupings, either to become autonomous or merge back
into the (Indian) state. Their hope was, of course, that this would
fragment Pakistan if it ever got formed. To the anger of Wavell
and Jinnah, Cripps declined to rule out this interpretation.
122 | Britain and India 1845–1947

On 27 June, Jinnah, feeling betrayed, announced that

constitutional methods had failed. The cabinet mission left India
and Wavell wrote:

The Mission gave away the weakness of our position and our bluff
has been called. Our time in India is limited and our power to
control events almost gone.

Wavell announced the imminent formation of the interim

government on the basis of six Congress nominees, five from the
Muslim League and three chosen by Wavell to represent
minorities. When the Muslim League declined to nominate
anyone, Wavell agreed that Congress should choose additional
Muslim representatives.
The Muslim League responded by withdrawing its previous
agreement to the May statement and instructed all Muslim
officials to resign.

Withdrawal plans
As the political process broke down, so the country slid towards
civil war. The commander-in-chief Auchinleck warned on
13 August that ‘in the event of civil war, the Indian armed forces
cannot be relied on’. Wavell was advised to ‘leave India to her
fate’. He wanted to announce a phased withdrawal which would
be completed by 1 January 1947, just five months later.
However, the British government wanted no sense of panic so
Wavell was refused troop reinforcements. He had almost been
refused permission to even make plans for the evacuation of
100,000 European civilians, including many families, and only
just got promises of extra ships if necessary.
Then, in the heat of August 1946, Jinnah made his first and
last great misjudgement.

Summary diagram: Options

Unrest, fear, courts martial, mutinies

1946 Indian general election

Cabinet mission

1946 Simla Conference

May statement Congress counter-interpretation

 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 123

2 | Setbacks
Key question The great Calcutta killings
Why did Jinnah resort Jinnah had decided that the time had come to show that the
to direct action? Muslim League could also use direct mass action like Gandhi and
Congress. Jinnah had up to now deplored the use of such action,
regarding it as a form of intimidation, and preferred entirely
peaceful means of constitutional negotiation. However, he had
now despaired of negotiations because of the tactics and
behaviour of Congress leaders and was confident of a show of
strength because of the election results. This combination of
inexperience, confidence and despair perhaps led him to
underestimate the forces he was about to unleash.
Key date

Direct action day: Jinnah called for a ‘universal Muslim hartal’ on 16 August 1946
16 August 1946 which was declared direct action day. The symbolic focus of the
strike was a huge Muslim League procession through Calcutta.
Jinnah’s intention was entirely peaceful and League leaders had
persuaded the relatively new British governor of Bengal to
declare a public holiday with the result that the army was
withdrawn to barracks.
However, the tens of thousands of marching Muslims had
provided themselves with lathis and rocks, for either self-defence
or aggression. Hindus threw stones as they passed. At the final
mass rally of 100,000 marchers, the chief minister of Bengal,
H.S. Suhrawardy, is thought to have incited violence against local
Hindus. As dark fell, the crowd moved off and the attacks began
in the slums and the docks. There followed three days and nights
of rioting, lynching, killing and arson before troops gained
control again. Hundreds of bodies were left in the streets. The toll
is now thought to have been 6000 people dead, nearly 20,000
wounded and 100,000 made homeless. Most of the latter moved
to areas already strong in numbers of their religious community –
a portent of the desperate migrations to come.

Causes and consequences

Key question
What were the It was assumed that, since Muslims were responsible for the
political march, the vast majority of victims were Hindu. This is not now
consequences of the thought to be the case. Congress held the governor responsible
Calcutta killings? for failing to prepare for rioting. However, elsewhere in India, the
hartal caused no trouble at all. Commentators now believe that
the initial trouble was exploited by the many underworld gangs of
the vast, poor city of Calcutta, looking to settle scores and indulge
in looting.
The outcome of the Calcutta massacres was the destruction of
any optimism that the communities and their leaders might take
political chances and offer compromises. The slope towards
communal partition had tipped steeply. For Jinnah, it was a
personal catastrophe. His reputation for wise leadership was
damaged, whether one believed that he knew what he was doing
or simply that the Muslim League could not manage its own
community discipline.
124 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Congress, notwithstanding its numerical strength, now felt the

injured party and resorted to working outside and against
negotiations. Gandhi warned Wavell that Congress would not try
to calm any future trouble if that actually meant using British
troops as back-up. Behind the scenes, Gandhi instructed the
Congress representative in London to try to set up a secret
meeting with the prime minister. Attlee agreed not only to the
meeting but also to the suggestion that Wavell should be replaced
as viceroy. Wavell got to know and, despite (false) reassurances
from Attlee, it was clear that Congress was succeeding in
undermining him.

The interim government

Key date
The long-awaited interim government took power on Interim government
2 September 1946, a moment described by the historian took power:
Patrick French as more important than independence nearly a 2 September 1946
year later. The 1935 Act had shifted power at the provincial level;
now the balance of power at the national level shifted over to
nationalist politicians.
The viceroy was still responsible for the effective government of
British India and relations with the princely states. However, as
governor-general in council, the same person was now obliged to
carry out the decisions of Indian ministers and members of
executive council. Since the Muslim League had withdrawn its
representatives, this meant that Congress was now in charge of
India, including foreign affairs which were the personal
responsibility of Nehru as vice-president of the executive council.
Congress general secretary, Sardar Patel, was responsible for

Key term
home affairs, which included security and the secret services. He Home affairs
immediately diverted the flow of intelligence reports to the Government
Congress administration, cutting out the viceroy. department for law,
Wavell persevered with attempts to bring the Muslim League order and justice.
back into the interim government and in October they agreed to
join the executive council. However, it was clear that it was not
from a position of strength. The League did not have a veto over
legislation concerning Muslims as it had previously demanded.
Jinnah declined to join the executive council because of Nehru’s
dominance and appointed Liaquat Ali Khan in his place. When
Wavell proposed the Muslim League be responsible for home
affairs, Congress threatened to bring down the new government
and Jinnah, avoiding a trial of strength, agreed to become finance
minister.
To complicate matters still further, relations between Nehru
and Patel had broken down since the elections for Congress
president in April 1946. Patel had secured the votes of 12 of the
15 provincial Congress committees, but Gandhi made it clear he
wanted Nehru and so it was decided. This was despite the
growing distance between Gandhi’s religious vision for
independent India and Nehru’s secular socialism.
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 125

Breakdown plan
Murderous consequences of the Calcutta killings spread
throughout the final months of 1946. Muslims in Bihar province
were killed in retaliation for the killing of Hindus in east Bengal
who had themselves been killed in reprisal for the Calcutta
violence. There was almost continuous rioting in Bengal, Bombay,
Bihar and the United Provinces. The terror included forced
conversions to Islam and forced marriages to Muslims. At Meerut,
a police officer’s wife was murdered with her eight children.
Whole villages were destroyed and areas cleared of one
community or the other. Twenty thousand Bihari Muslims died in
1947 with tens of thousands on the move.
In November, Wavell again warned the secretary of state,
Pethick Lawrence, that the country was on the brink of civil war
and asked for guidance. He had prepared a secret breakdown
plan. In the event of the collapse of the interim government and
law and order, all British civilians and families would be moved
speedily to heavily protected safe zones near the coast in the
north-east and west. They would be evacuated from Calcutta and
Karachi. British troops would also be withdrawn leaving only
Indian forces to maintain any order. Wavell, and the commander-
in-chief, Auchinleck, agreed that:

our present position in India is analogous to that of a military force

compelled to withdraw in the face of greatly superior numbers.

Attlee refused to agree to the plan, saying that it would be

accepting defeat. In fact, Attlee was stalling while he considered
replacing Wavell, a situation which only let matters get worse.

The London talks

Eventually, Attlee agreed to summon Indian leaders to talks in
London. Nehru, Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan and Balder Singh for
the Sikhs engaged in four days of talks with Wavell and Attlee.
The Muslim League was continuing to insist on the basic
interpretation of the May statement, namely that groupings of
provinces could secede from an independent India. On this basis,
they saw no need for a further constituent assembly.
Constitutional experts agreed with this interpretation, but
Attlee had taken against the Muslim League, describing Jinnah as
‘an Indian fascist’. He reassured Nehru of his support for
Congress. They would press ahead with the constituent assembly
and Nehru flew back for its opening.
Jinnah remained at his residence in London, laid low by illness
and disappointment. The 79 Muslim seats in the constituent
assembly would be boycotted so there was no urgency to return.
Wavell too stayed on to press the case for a retreat plan. He
also wanted decisions about the employment or pensions of the
tens of thousands of British officials about to become unemployed
upon independence. He made no progress. Indeed, his position
was further weakened by the British appointment of a high
commissioner to handle relations between the Indian interim
126 | Britain and India 1845–1947

government and the British Government, leaving the viceroy a

figurehead.

Constituent assembly

Key date
The constituent assembly convened on 7 December 1946 but Constituent assembly
would never complete its task. Muslim demands for separate met: 7 December
states grew ever stronger. 1946
Attlee was privately determined to force the issue by replacing
Wavell with a new viceroy eager to hand over power as soon as
possible.
In February 1947, Wavell was recalled to London and was told
it was time for a change at the top. He was offered an earldom
but no thanks for his work as viceroy. He was in effect sacked
without dignity and everyone knew it. His view was that the Attlee
government seemed as unclear what to do as Churchill’s wartime
government had been clear what not to do.

Summary diagram: Setbacks

Great Calcutta killings

Interim government

London talks

Constituent assembly

3 | Full Speed Ahead

The last viceroy
Attlee considered his choice of Lord Louis Mountbatten as the
new viceroy to be brilliant. He was a military commander in the
region and known privately to be sympathetic to the Labour
government. He was moreover quite royal, being the king’s
cousin, which was appealing in a sentimental way since it was
quite clear that he would be the last viceroy of the British Raj.
It is generally accepted that Mountbatten was full of self-
importance, unjustified by his war record for example. Knowing
Key term

that he had been selected for the position added to his desire to Plenipotentiary
set conditions. He successfully demanded plenipotentiary powers
powers. The capacity to
Historian Stanley Wolpert takes an even more critical view, make decisions
stating that Mountbatten knew the viceroyalty would be an without approval
interruption, however grand, to his naval career and he was from government.
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 127

Profile: Lord Mountbatten 1900–79

1900 – Born
1943 – Supreme Allied commander, South East Asia
1947 – Last viceroy of India
1947–8 – First governor-general of independent India
1979 – Died

Louis (Dickie) Mountbatten was born into a branch of the British

royal family and was the great-uncle of Prince Charles. He served
in the Royal Navy in the First and Second World Wars, during
which he planned the disastrous Dieppe Raid. Before becoming
viceroy he was supreme commander in South East Asia, based in
Ceylon.
There has been much speculation about the relationships
between the Mountbattens and Nehru. At the very least, there was
a strong personal friendship between them all at the time.
However, Lady Mountbatten is known to have had many previous
affairs – a form of behaviour quite normal in British aristocratic
marriages – and one which was known and tolerated by
Mountbatten himself (perhaps because of similar, possibly
bisexual, behaviour). For the rest of Nehru’s life, Edwina visited
Nehru and he stayed with her alone in England. It has been
assumed that she developed an affair with Nehru: some say only
later, others argue that it was an open secret since Jinnah resisted
arguments to use it against Congress and the viceroy.
Lord Mountbatten was killed by the Irish Republican Army who
exploded a bomb aboard his fishing yacht in Ireland in 1979.

determined to be brisk and brusque in handing India back. The

fact that Attlee had replaced Pethick Lawrence as secretary of
state by the young Earl of Listowel showed that no great
experience would be applied to brake Mountbatten’s impatience.
However, in contrast to the public display of power and self-
confidence, Mountbatten also insisted privately on strict
instructions from the Attlee government about political objectives.
He wanted no setbacks to this final glorious viceroyalty.
The instructions Mountbatten received were to complete the
transfer of power no later than the end of June 1948, having
concluded a fair deal for the princely states and preserved the
united strength of the Indian army. The public announcement of
his appointment on 18 March included the objective of obtaining:

a unitary government for British India and the Indian (princely)

states, if possible within the British Commonwealth.

This latter point was Attlee’s, and the king’s, last main hope.
Key date

Mountbatten became Mountbatten took over on 22 March. In later recollection, he

last viceroy: 22 March claimed he was conscious of huge power. In reality, political
1947 events had a growing momentum of their own and Mountbatten
needed to win approvals from politicians as before. In effect,
128 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Nehru (second from

right) and the
Mountbattens. What
does the body
language reveal about
their relationship?

Mountbatten’s role was to cover the feeble departure of the

British in a little aristocratic glamour. Patel saw through it
immediately and remarked that Mountbatten was a toy for Nehru
to play with.
Mountbatten engaged in a series of meetings with political
leaders while his wife, Lady Edwina, accompanied him in uniform
on visits to troubled areas. Mountbatten was charmed by Congress
politicians. Nehru with his English public school education was a
favourite and was given time to be privately spiteful about Jinnah.
Mountbatten admired Patel’s bluntness but found Jinnah resistant
to charm, judging him later to be ‘a psychopathic case’. Dr
Ambedkar insisted that Congress did not represent the 60 million
Dalits or the three million Christians come to that.

Political stakes
The political stakes were higher than ever. The British wanted a
peaceful handover under international scrutiny. The Muslims
found Mountbatten much less sympathetic than Wavell, but knew
that the best hope for Pakistan still lay with a British reluctance to
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 129

simply walk away from a political disaster. For its part, the
Congress leadership had come to the view that the first cabinet
mission proposal – for a single federal state – would actually
weaken the control of the national organisation.
Accordingly, and rather suddenly, in March 1947, Patel and
Key dates

Congress accepted Nehru persuaded the Congress working committee to accept

Pakistan demand:
March 1947
publicly the demand for Pakistan (provided half the Punjab
remained in India) in order to remove the point of compromising
Plan Balkan: 3 May over a decentralised state. The Congress leadership had decided
1947
that even if Pakistan came into existence, it could not survive
economically or politically and it would be reabsorbed back into a
strongly centralised state of India. Such a victory would be worth
both the gamble and the wait.

April conference
In April 1947 Mountbatten convened a conference of the 11
British provincial governors. They expressed grave concerns
about the continuing growth of unrest and the likelihood of civil
war given the increasing numbers of armed groups ‘defending’
the political parties. They recommended the earliest possible
announcement of a definite plan for independence and partition
if necessary.
However, it was also clear to all that no plan had a chance of
peace without the agreement of Congress. Mountbatten thought
that only a ‘clean partition’ would satisfy them. This would be no
easy matter since Jinnah was now arguing that the two potential
halves of Pakistan, East and West, should be linked by a land
corridor, hundreds of miles in length cutting through Indian
territory, but presumably under Pakistani control.

Key question
Plan Balkan
How did Plan Balkan Mountbatten’s first plan for an independent future was presented
envisage decision- in secret to the British Cabinet on 3 May. It has become known as
making? Plan Balkan after the European region renowned for splintered
states almost continually at war.
The plan proposed that all decisions would be freely made at
the provincial level. So, the 11 British provinces would be allowed
to decide whether to be autonomous or join to form larger
groups, not necessarily of comparable size. The provinces of
Bengal and Punjab would be able to partition themselves if that
was the popular preference. The princely states could also remain
individually autonomous or join with others including former
British provinces.
At best, this might be seen to permit or secure local agreement
in the hope of a process of gradual formation of economically
stronger groups. At worst, it seemed that Mountbatten was trying
to wash his hands of any decision-making from the start. The
cabinet was not impressed but made only minor amendments
such as confirming that North West Frontier Province could
become independent of a Pakistan swirling around it.
Mountbatten announced that he would reveal the plan at a
conference of Indian leaders to be held before the end of May.
130 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Meanwhile, Patel was calling for the immediate transfer of power

to let Indians make their own plans whilst the most high-ranking
Indian in the Army of India declared that a military dictatorship
was probably the best course of action.

The Simla moment Key question

Before the momentous announcement, Mountbatten took a Why did Mountbatten
private break with his wife at the viceregal summer residence in invite Nehru to Simla
Simla. They were joined, at the viceroy’s request, by Nehru and in 1947?
his daughter, Indira.
Whatever the truth about the personal relationships of the

Key date
Mountbattens with Nehru, it certainly risked accusations of Mountbatten showed
political favouritism to invite Nehru at this sensitive time. But Nehru Plan Balkan at
Simla: 10 May 1947
perhaps Mountbatten planned to use social appearances to cover
a political move which was clearly unfair and would have been
indefensible if it had become public.
During the night of 10 May, Mountbatten showed Nehru the
short document setting out his plan (Balkan) and asked him to
give his response in the morning. Some consider this to have
been a consequence of growing nervousness about the plan.
Perhaps Mountbatten hoped that before the plan became public
he could alter any matters likely to make Congress object. If that
was his thought, he had a rude awakening.
Nehru sent him a confidential note on the morning of 11 May
which slashed the plan. Nehru called it ‘a picture of
fragmentation, conflict and disorder’ which would create a

Key term
multitude of Ulsters all over the continent. Nehru blamed the Ulster
British government for the impracticality and unacceptability of Province in Ireland
the plan, but that was perhaps to avoid embarrassing allowed to remain
Mountbatten. British.
Nevertheless, one of Mountbatten’s team said that not only was:
‘British policy … once more in ruins but [Mountbatten] had
endured a personal and most humiliating rebuff.’
Mountbatten asserted at a crisis meeting with his advisers on
11 May that the plan had only contained what Indians had
previously indicated they would agree to and that his midnight
tryst with Nehru had at any rate saved the day.

The Menon (June 3) Plan

In public, there was no immediate change to the intention of
announcing the plan on 20 May. Behind the scenes, of course, an
entirely new plan had to be decided and approved by the British
cabinet. Moreover, by seeking Nehru’s secret approval once,
Mountbatten had effectively committed himself to ensuring his
prior approval for any back-up plan.
With only hours before Nehru was due to leave Simla,
V.P. Menon, the Indian reforms commissioner, was asked by
Mountbatten to turn the dormant second cabinet mission plan
into a credible document. This he did and Nehru pronounced
himself satisfied. Rather incredibly, this two or three hours work
became the basis for the greatest peacetime transfer of power in
history.
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 131

The Menon Plan was for two states, India and Pakistan, with
dominion status in what was now called the Commonwealth.
Moreover, there would be no further deliberation by the
constituent assembly as the states would use the existing political
structures of the 1935 Act until they wished to alter them (in
different ways). Provincial assemblies would decide which state to
join, with the Bengal and Punjab assemblies also voting on the
question of provincial partitions.
The princes would now decide whether to join not regional
groupings but either India or Pakistan as states or, as before,
insist on their autonomy.
Mountbatten informed the cabinet that the plan they had
approved was now dead in the water but he had another. He was
summoned to London with Menon and the original date for
announcement of the plan passed.
Back in India at the end of May, Mountbatten embarked on a
series of meetings to win groups over to the plan. He knew that
Congress approved because they would easily gain control of a
single Indian state, especially without the poor Muslim areas, and
if dominion status was somewhat patronising, no one could stop
them dropping it once the handover ceremonies had been
forgotten.
Just to be sure, Mountbatten went to see Gandhi, who was not
concerned enough to break his latest vow of silence, preferring to
write comments on the backs of envelopes. For the Sikhs, Balder
Singh, now defence minister, had literally no alternative and had
to agree.
Jinnah, too, was finally in a corner. There would be a single,
two-part, state of Pakistan but, with the almost inevitable
partitions of Bengal and Punjab, it was no more than the area he
had previously described as ‘motheaten’. Moreover, the regional
Muslim leaders were more than ready to do their own
independence deals to secure their local power. This was finally
the best deal he was going to get and within 24 hours Jinnah had
given his agreement also.
Key date

Announcement of On the evening of 3 June, Mountbatten and the leaders went

final plan for on All-India Radio to announce that a plan for the future of India
independence and
and Pakistan had been agreed. The tone was hardly celebratory.
partition: 3 June 1947
The underlying message was that it was all that could now be
rescued from the situation. Jinnah did attempt to end on a
positive note with the phrase ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ – ‘Long Live
Pakistan’ – but with poor radio reception, it was heard as
‘Pakistan’s in the Bag’ which sounded falsely triumphal and
further antagonised Hindus.
The precise date for the transfer of power appears to have been
Key question overlooked at first. According to the authors Collins and
How was the date for
handover decided? Lapierre, Mountbatten claimed to have been unprepared for the
question at a press conference about the 3 June plan but
improvised brilliantly in order to maintain his image of
confidence. He instantly chose 15 August because it was the
second anniversary of the Japanese surrender which ended the
132 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Nehru, Ismay, Mountbatten and Jinnah (left to right) at the meeting to agree the final plan for
independence and partition, 3 June 1947. What do the facial expressions suggest?

Second World War. With hindsight, this was perhaps not the date
to mark the retreat of the British from India.
More significantly, it soon emerged that according to Hindu
astrologers, 15 August 1947 was so horrendously inauspicious that
a compromise had to be found. The transfer would take place at
the stroke of midnight which might be regarded as the moment
between the two days.

Summary diagram: Full speed ahead

Viceroy Mountbatten

Congress accepts
Pakistan demand

Plan Balkan

Simla moment

Menon plan

3 June plan: All-India Radio announcement

 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 133

4 | Decisions
The Sikhs
The situation of the six million Sikhs was complicated and
serious. Sikhs had dispersed across India (and the world), but
were concentrated in the Punjab, where the city of Amritsar was
holy to them. Relations between Sikhs and Muslims were never
friendly. The prospect for the hundreds of thousands of Sikhs in
the future Pakistan was not good.
The Sikh political party, the Panthic Pratinidhi, gained 22 seats
in the Punjabi assembly in the 1946 elections and their leader,
Tara Singh, claimed the right to autonomy. In fact, Jinnah offered
autonomy within Pakistan but this was emphatically rejected.
There was, however, no realistic prospect of a third, independent
Sikh state.
During 1947, communal violence escalated in the Punjab, with
Sikhs particularly fearful of the paramilitary Muslim guards. Tens
of thousands of Sikhs began to move out of what would be
Pakistan territory. The provincial government began to
disintegrate.
The 3 June plan made no particular provision for the Sikhs
despite promises of special consideration. Balder Singh was
scorned for giving it his support. Local leaders spoke of uprising
and civil war.
Rumours about the line of the eventual border raised tensions
even more. In particular, the arrival of official army troops in the
mainly Sikh district of Ferozepur meant that trouble was
expected, which suggested it had been included in Pakistan,
which in turn meant that Amritsar itself was at best surrounded
by Muslim Pakistan or fully incorporated.
In fact, while this had been true for a while, the territory
around Amritsar had been clearly marked for India but the troops
had not been recalled. This one small area would be a flashpoint.

Key question The princely states

What options were The legal position of the princely states was perhaps more
there for the princely complicated than the Sikh situation though hardly so dangerous.
states? Strictly speaking, it was not even possible to talk of a collective
position. Each of the 561 rulers had a separate treaty with the
British, indeed a separate kind of treaty depending on whether
they were union states, petty states, agencies or protectorates.
With the departure of the British, each ruler was free to decide
his own position. For a few states of a huge size and wealth
continued independence was a tantalising possibility.
The British had no power to transfer a treaty even if the ruler
wished it. Moreover, the nations of India and Pakistan did not yet
exist and the princely states could not conclude new treaties with
non-existent countries. So it looked unlikely that the transfer of
power from the British to the Indian and Pakistani governments
could also include a complete decision about the political map of
the subcontinent.
134 | Britain and India 1845–1947

In this light, it is remarkable that, in fact, hundreds of years of

princely autonomy were abandoned so quickly and so easily. Two
legal principles were key: paramountcy and accession.

Paramountcy
India had for hundreds of years been subject to a fluctuating
mixture of foreign and regional powers. Nevertheless, there was
no historical precedent for power to be relinquished or gained on
a single day.
Congress seized the constitutional initiative and claimed that it
should now be recognised as the paramount power and opened
negotiations with the princely states in the future Indian territory.
There was no objection: there were no realistically autonomous
states in the future Pakistan territory and, it quickly transpired,
the states themselves were ready to reach new arrangements.

Accession
In overall diplomatic terms, it was maintained that no decisions
need be taken before 15 August. After that, the princely states
would be able to conclude formal treaties with the constituted
states of India and Pakistan. Out of diplomatic courtesy, it was
maintained that such treaties might indeed recognise the
independence of the princely state in question. However, states

Key term
were welcome to accede to the new nations. Accession
This courtesy actually permitted Congress, and Mountbatten, to The process of
work hard behind the scenes to push states to become part of peacefully merging
India. Congress set up a states department to handle approaches into a larger
to, and negotiations with, each of the rulers. For the time being, country.
all criticism of the lack of democracy in the princely states was
suspended.

Pressure
At the same time, all the small states without access to the sea
were forced to confront their geographical weakness.
Mountbatten assisted Congress by ruthlessly pressurising the
rulers, publicly and privately. At a meeting of the chamber of
princes on 25 July, he presented a scenario of constant fighting
between local warlords with private armies, as in China. He wrote
to each prince, telling them that his cousin, the king, would be
personally insulted if they did not choose to become part of the
new Dominion of India. He blithely promised that they would be
free to become independent again if India became a republic,
ignoring the fact that by then British promises would have no
legal power.
This combination of Congress courtesy and royal arm-twisting
resulted in a mass movement amongst the princes to accede to
India. The princes would be allowed to stay as local rulers, with
residual pomp and power to levy local taxes. India would be
responsible for their defence and foreign relations and the
territory would be officially part of India. As such, it has been
calculated that Patel and Menon added more land to India than
would be ‘lost’ by the creation of Pakistan.
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 135

The plan in reality

Earlier in the day of 3 June, the British had presented a dossier
to Indian leaders entitled ‘The Administrative Consequences of
Partition’. Despite its bland title, it opened the final bitter and
bloody phase of the independence struggle.
The dossier outlined matters for decision such as geographical
boundaries, diplomatic representation, division of armed forces,
civil departments, assets including railways, justice and the courts.

Decisions about decisions

The arguments started at the very next meeting over the prior
question of who was responsible for making the decisions.
Congress argued that it was for Indians to decide; Jinnah that it
was for the British to decide how to dispose of their colonial
property. He knew that the Muslims were unlikely to obtain as
much from Congress as from the British. However, Mountbatten
sided with Congress, arguing that the governor-general in council
– that is he himself – was now executive officer of the Indian
ministers of the interim government. Their decisions, ratified by
the chief justice of India, would be final. Since Congress
dominated the interim government, they would be Congress
decisions and that, in effect, meant Sardar Patel decisions.
Congress forced confrontation of another issue. In their view, it
was nonsense to think that India was being created. India existed
and would continue. It was Pakistan which did not yet exist and
therefore it was another nonsense to describe provinces joining a
state which did not exist. They were seceding from India.
Accordingly, if that was their choice they did not deserve any of
India’s assets.

Other attitudes
There was a considerable amount of desperately looking on the
bright side: Mountbatten was told by an adviser that if he had not
transferred power when he did, there would have been no power
to transfer. Maulana Azad, the Congress Muslim leader, expressed
a common view that:

The division is only of the map of the country and not in the hearts
of the people and I am sure it is going to be a short-lived partition.

There were also hardline attitudes: some Hindus were opposed to

any partition even if voted for by provincial governments and
some Muslims demanded that the historic Muslim capital of
Delhi be part of Pakistan whatever the local wish (likely to be for
India).

Provincial decisions
As set out in the 3 June plan, assemblies of the affected provinces
held votes to determine which of the future states they would join:
• Sind and Baluchistan voted with straightforward majorities for
being part of a Pakistani state.
136 | Britain and India 1845–1947

• In the complex communal provinces of Bengal and Punjab,

Muslim representatives voted for undivided provinces to be in
Pakistan, whereas the Hindu and (Punjabi) Sikh representatives
voted for partition so that their majority areas might be in
India. The provinces would accordingly be divided.
• In the North West Frontier Province, a full plebiscite was held
because it was recognised that there was considerable support
for Congress or even the creation of a separate tribal area:
‘Pakhtunistan’. The Muslim majority decision was to be part of
Pakistan.

The Independence Act

Key dates
With these decisions, the way was open to frame the Independence of India
independence bill, which would create the two new states. This Act: 4 July 1947
was done in a matter of days, even including securing the Interim government
agreement of both Congress and the Muslim League to the split: 19 July 1947
wording in advance of parliamentary discussion. On 3 July, the
India committee of the British government worked until
midnight to finalise the bill which was printed during the night
and presented to the House of Commons on the morning of
4 July. It was passed immediately without amendment let alone
objection (and one in a bunch of bills) and became law in mid-July.

Assets and the partition council

Key question
A dedicated partition council was set up in June 1947 to reach How were assets
decisions on the division of the assets currently belonging to the apportioned?
British in India. Every item, from steam locomotives down to
typewriters, had to be apportioned. More acutely, every single
administrator and civil servant would have to choose or be
deployed to one new country or the other.
On the partition council, Sardar Patel and Rajandra Prasad
represented Congress; Liaquat Ali Khan and Abdur Rab Nishtar,
soon replaced by Jinnah himself, the Muslim League.
The partition council became in effect the government of
(British) India because there was no other more important
business now than deciding this division. (The geographical
division was out of Indian hands.) On 19 July the interim
government formally split into two interim governments, one for
each of the imminent states.
However, behind the public façade of two new, constitutionally
equal, states, Congress exerted maximum control on the basis
that Pakistan was seceding and forfeited any right to Indian
property. Similarly, any official who selected employment in the
future Pakistan was immediately ejected from their workplace.
The planning for Pakistan was undertaken in tent offices with
scarcely any equipment.
For this reason, Liaquat Ali Khan wanted partition, if not actual
independence, brought forward two weeks to 1 August. This
attitude runs counter to the argument that Mountbatten should
be held responsible for the rush to independence and partition.
However, there is no escaping the shameful partisanship he
displayed over the decisions of future pomp and ceremony.
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 137

Governor-general
India and Pakistan were to become separate dominions within the
Commonwealth. As such, they would retain the British monarch
as head of state, with a constitutional and legislative structure like
Britain of the crown-in-parliament. They would retain a
governor-general to represent the Crown element in their own
territories.
Mountbatten had assumed that he would become governor-
general of both the successor states. He considered this would
show proper care and impartiality. This was despite his evident
antipathy to Jinnah, the Muslim League and Pakistan, and his
lack of concern about their treatment by Congress in the partition
council decisions.
Jinnah wrong-footed him with a radical but rational decision.
He declared that there was no need for a British governor-
general and that he would bear the responsibility himself. It was
clear to the Muslims that a weak Pakistan would only come under
more pressure from having the same governor-general as a
Key terms

Realpolitik strong, hostile India. Mountbatten now found himself at the

A term for political receiving end of the same realpolitik that he had supported when
leverage, borrowed it was Congress exerting the control and pressure. He was faced
from the German with the choice of resigning, impartially, on independence day or
language. revealing his favoured relationship with India. He chose to keep
R.I. the governor-generalship of India (which actually had to be
Rex Imperator, Latin offered first by Nehru on 15 August).
for King-Emperor. Mountbatten was also forced to acquiesce when Jinnah pointed
out that George R.I., the king’s official title, would no longer be
acceptable in Pakistan since the ‘I’ clearly had no further basis in
constitutional reality.

Key question Border decisions

How were the borders As early as February 1946, Viceroy Wavell had defined a specific
decided? line of demarcation between future Indian and Pakistani territory
(on a map, not in reality). No further work was done until the

Jinnah arrives in
Pakistan on 7 August
1947 with his sister
Fatima. Compare his
clothing with the
photograph of Nehru
and Jinnah on
page 111.
138 | Britain and India 1845–1947

partition council commissioned an independent British lawyer to

draw up proposals. Sir Cyril Radcliffe KC (King’s Counsel)

Key date
arrived in New Delhi on 8 July, 36 days before independence, Territorial partition
and hid himself away in order to create an air of neutral work began: 8 July
consideration of maps and statistics, rather than listening to 1947
political arguments.
Two separate boundary commissions were established, one for
the border between West Pakistan and India and one for the
border around East Pakistan. The former involved the partition
of the Punjab, the latter the partition of Bengal. Each commission
had two Muslim and two non-Muslim high court judges with
Radcliffe as chairperson to exercise the decisive casting vote in
the event of split decisions.

Criteria
The commissions used census data to identify the majority

Key terms
community in each district of the relevant provinces along the District
provisional demarcation line. They then tried to ensure that the A formal
districts of a particular majority could be grouped so as not to subdivision of a
leave any district surrounded by a different communal majority. province.
Every district should be contiguous at some point with a district
Contiguous
of the same majority.
A formal term for
It was recognised that the 1941 census would be out of date
touching or
and might be seriously wrong in the case of the Punjab, in
adjoining.
particular, since many Sikhs had been away in the army at the
time. Cartographical
Relating to maps.
Assumptions
Various assumptions surrounded the issue of boundaries. These
were never really dispelled because what emerged was never
actually publicised for discussion. It was simply announced by the
British as a fact.
In the first place, Jinnah had from the start of the Pakistan
demand been careful not to get involved in discussions about
actual borders. Nothing was done to dispel hopes of a so-called
‘greater Pakistan’, including undivided provinces of Punjab and
Bengal and perhaps even reaching Delhi in the east. It was on the
basis of this unconfirmed idea that the elections of 1946 had
taken place.
There was a Congress assumption, as previously noted, that
Pakistan could be ‘given away’ because it would fairly quickly
come to its senses and be reintegrated.
The most widespread assumption was that the borders would
be largely theoretical or cartographical. It was assumed that in
practice, people would come and go across the border freely. The
precise line might appear to cut villages off from their fields, for
example, but farmers would simply live in one country and work
in another a few hundred metres away. Certainly, middle-class
Muslims, such as Jinnah, intended to keep homes in India as well
as Pakistan and travel frequently between them. On this
assumption, it was felt even in June 1947 that independence
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 139

might arrive without confirmed decisions which could all be

worked out in due course.
In the end, Mountbatten did indeed postpone the
announcement of the frontiers until after the independence
ceremonies. Although he claimed to have no knowledge of the
details, he had realised that there would be trouble which would
quickly take the joy out of the celebrations.

Problems
Key question
Why did the border The borders determined by Radcliffe were basically the same as
line become a those secretly drawn up by Wavell in 1946. The unexpected and
flashpoint? tragic reactions created by their notification will be dealt with in
the next section. A number of other matters may be noted here.
On the eastern edge of East Pakistan, a tribal area called the
Chittagong Hill Tracts, which was neither Muslim nor Hindu, was
awarded to Pakistan. The main reason appears to have been to
include the port of Chittagong within East Pakistan which was not
going to include the great Bengal port of Calcutta. Indeed, to
create an Indian zone around Calcutta a small Muslim area to its
north was awarded to India.
In the Punjab, the key problem was that Amritsar district,
containing the holy city of the Sikhs, was largely surrounded by
Muslim-majority districts. In addition, for a while, even Ferozepur
district, despite being a Sikh-majority area, had been marked for
Pakistan.

0 100 200 Original provincial border

km Frontier shown in
Independence Act 1947
Final frontier of
N boundary commission

Sylhet

Chittagong
Dacca Hill Tracts

Chittagong
Calcutta

Bay of
Bengal

Partition of Bengal in
1947.
140 | Britain and India 1845–1947

It was decided to award a small portion of Lahore district to

India, even though Lahore city itself was to be in Pakistan. In
addition, the Gurdaspur and Ferozepur districts were placed on
the India side of the line.
However, additional troops had already been sent to Ferozepur
district in anticipation of trouble. The plans were changed but
this was of course unknown to the local population who were
alarmed by the arrival of the troops. The alarm would escalate
throughout the province and lead to terrible massacres.
There is confusion and controversy to this day about this small
but tragic detail of partition. Radcliffe destroyed all his notes on
completion of his task so his reasoning is not known. French
argues that the original allocation of Ferozepur to Pakistan was in
order to ensure that the headwaters of the Sutlej river were
protected from diversion into Indian Punjab irrigation. Wolpert
argues that Gurdaspur was reallocated to India to protect the last
Indian strategic road route up to Kashmir. This princely state had
not yet decided its future but the later revelation of this change
has led many to see a plan to force Kashmir to accede to India
(see page 146).
One other area of dispute was the Andaman Islands lying off
Burma. During the war, these islands had been given to the
Indian National Army by the invading Japanese. Now Congress
claimed them for India. The Muslim League argued that if there
was to be no land connection between the two halves of Pakistan,
then they should be granted the islands as a refuelling base. The
British also wanted them as a strategic base in the Indian Ocean
since they were about to lose the entire subcontinent and all its
naval dockyards.

Independence arrives
At the stroke of midnight between 14 and 15 August 1947, the
British Raj came to an end and the two nations of India and
Pakistan came into existence.

Other imperial matters

The remaining French colonial possessions in India – mainly
coastal cities including primarily Pondicherry – were not
absorbed into India until 1954.
Portugal, under the Salazar dictatorship, refused to negotiate
over its colonial cities, including Goa. They were eventually
invaded and annexed by India in 1961.
Burma, which had become a separate territory of the British
Empire in 1937 as a provision of the 1935 Government of
India Act, became independent in 1948 and was later named
Myanmar.
Ceylon, not actually part of British India although part of the
Empire, became independent in 1948 and was renamed Sri
Lanka.
 AZAD KASHMIR (Pakistan)
JAMMU and KASHMIR (India)
Kabul

IRAN AFGHANISTAN CHINA

0 400 800
Lahore
Amritsar [TIBET] km
WEST PAKISTAN SIKKIM BHUTAN
[PAKISTAN] Delhi NEP
AL

[BANGLADESH]
EAST
Karachi Dhaka
PAKISTAN
INDIA Calcutta BURMA
[MYANMAR] FRENCH
INDOCHINA
[VIETNAM]

Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 141

Bombay
SIAM
Bay of
Bengal [THAILAND]
Arabian
Sea

Goa
N Madras
Pondicherry

CEYLON
[SRI LANKA]

Indian Ocean

Final borders 1947.

142 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Mountbatten had attended ceremonies with Jinnah in Karachi on

14 August but was firmly back in India by evening.
Nehru went on All-India Radio to make one of the most poetic,
apparently unscripted, political speeches in history. He declared:

Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny and now the time
comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full
measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour,
while the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A
moment comes which comes but rarely in history, when we step
out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul
of a nation long suppressed finds utterance … This is no time for
ill-will or blaming others. We have to build the noble mansion of
free India where all her children may dwell.

Radcliffe departs
Radcliffe left India on 17 August as the border decisions were
announced. There was widespread condemnation. As the scale of
the human consequences became apparent to the world, the
newly formed United Nations launched an inquiry. Radcliffe
argued that he could not be held personally responsible for the
aftermath. His task had been to make recommendations to the
viceroy whose responsibility it was to reject them or accept and
announce them. Radcliffe was so appalled at being made the
scapegoat that he refused to accept payment for the job done.

Summary diagram: Decisions

Sikhs; Princes

Planning consequences of partition

Provincial decisions on accession

Independence Act

Governor-general decision Partition council: division of assets

Radcliffe boundary commissions

Punjab: Gurdaspur and Ferozepur

Independence day
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 143

5 | Aftermath
Migrations and massacres
Mountbatten and Supreme Commander Auchinleck had agreed
that the priority for remaining British troops was to protect an
early withdrawal of Europeans from the subcontinent. Accordingly,
Auchinleck began the process of recalling troops on 15 August.
However, there was no violence directed at British troops or
civilians during the departure phase. It quickly became clear that
fear, anger and revenge would be intensely communal. It is
debatable whether both of these factors were because the
secretary of state, Listowel, made a statement that troops would
not intervene in any communal disturbances after independence.
The broken Indian and Pakistan armies were not in a position to
immediately take up maintenance of order.
As a consequence, armed militias arose to protect and to
Key terms

Jatha intimidate. In the Punjab, Sikhs organised into jathas of about

A squad. 30 men operating outside the law and across borders as they
thought necessary. A semi-formal, multi-religious Punjab
Gurdwara
boundary force, about 20,000 strong, came together but could not
Sikh temple.
protect over 17,000 villages.
On 14 August, 38 Sikhs at Lahore train station, waiting to
travel out of what was about to become part of Pakistan, were
knifed to death. Later the same day, a Muslim mob set fire to a
gurdwara in Lahore burning to death hundreds of Sikhs gathered
inside for protection.
The next day, independence day, Muslim women in the Indian
Punjab were dragged into the streets, stripped, raped and hacked
to death.
On 20 August, militiamen of the Punjab boundary force shot
dead 84 participants in a Muslim mob. On 24 August, Muslim
members of the force were killed by their fellow Hindu soldiers,
after having shot Hindu looters. The force split along communal
lines and on 1 September was broken up completely. There was
no law and order in the Punjab for weeks on end.

Massacres
Massacres of whole villages began. Thousands were killed every
day. As fear and panic spread, hundreds of thousands, even
millions, of people left their homes to attempt to reach the
relative safety of the other country of their co-religionists. As they
walked in endless lines, they were even more vulnerable to attack.
Most memorably infamous are the trains pulling into their
destinations without a living passenger, the thousands of refugees
aboard having been massacred and sent on their way. A reporter
for The Times watched a train full of 4000 Muslims being carefully
shunted into a station siding in preparation for a cold-blooded
massacre. Eventually, trains started running again with armed
guards.
Criminal gangs preyed on migrants, death squads worked
through lists of names to clear neighbourhoods. Victims were
144 | Britain and India 1845–1947

publicly humiliated, tortured and genitally mutilated before being

killed.
As law and order disintegrated and thousands of bodies were
left to rot in the August heat, cholera and other diseases spread
rapidly, causing more fear and flight. It is said that the vultures
were too fat to fly.

Mass rape
Mass rape was used as a weapon of war. Hindu, Sikh and Muslim
women alike committed suicide when surrounded, often by
throwing themselves down wellshafts. In some cases, men killed
their families rather than let the mobs get to them. Women and
girls were also abducted, forcibly converted and ‘married’. Even
when located in later years, the women were afraid to return to
their own communities because of what they had been forced
into.
The personal and financial strain of the refugee crisis was
intolerable. More than half a million refugees arrived in Indian
Punjab, making the province bankrupt. Hundreds of thousands
struggled on to Delhi, barely surviving in squalid camps where
women and girls were sold in exchange for food.

Death toll
All the authorities publicly underestimated the death toll. The
British preferred it to be seen as continuing unrest but on a larger
scale; they did not want to be accused of causing, and then

Cartoon about the aftermath of partition. What do the various central figures represent? What is
their reaction to the events around them?
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 145

turning their back on, an unprecedented human catastrophe. The

Indian and Pakistani governments quite simply wanted to avoid
inflaming the situation or appearing incompetent. At the time, it
was said that 200,000 died; a figure of about a million is now
regarded as more accurate.
The massacres have left a psychological scar across the political
act of partition and the birth of the two independent nations. In
the Punjab, it was nothing less than civil war, and in the opinion
of some, communal genocide. The dubious current term of
‘ethnic cleansing’ would certainly be applied: less than 1 per cent
of the population of Pakistani Punjab is Hindu or Sikh and less
than 1 per cent of the Indian Punjab population is Muslim.

The princely states

On independence, India and Pakistan were able to conclude legal
treaties with the princely states. Within two years, as a result of
the determined negotiations of Menon and Patel, all but three of
the 561 states had acceded to what was termed the Indian Union.
Only three States resisted: Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir.

Junagadh
The Nawab of Junagadh, a small coastal state in the north-west,
had opted to accede to Pakistan on independence even though

Refugee train in the Punjab in 1947. What would be the advantages and risks of escaping by
train?
146 | Britain and India 1845–1947

the two were separated by 300 miles of Indian territory.

Mountbatten had not argued against this plan when he was still
viceroy. Patel had other ideas. He ordered the Indian army to
blockade the state, threatening mass starvation. The Nawab fled
by sea to Pakistan, the army ‘invaded’ and a quick plebiscite
resulted in an overwhelming popular vote to join the Indian
union.

Hyderabad
The Nizam of Hyderabad declined to join either India or
Pakistan on the principle that modern nation-states should not be
formed for religious reasons. Although landlocked in the centre
of the subcontinent, he could afford this high-minded stance
because Hyderabad covered tens of thousands of square metres
(larger than many members of the United Nations), had its own
army and the Nizam was then the richest man in the world. He
was able to lend the new Pakistan government 200 million rupees
without hesitation. It was agreed that there should be a one year
‘standstill agreement’. After the departure of Mountbatten (in
1948), Nehru and Patel ordered the annexation of the state, the
army invaded (really invaded this time, since the ruler resisted)
and after four days of fighting, the Nizam gave in.

Kashmir
Key question
The problem of Kashmir has still not been resolved. Kashmir was Why did the region of
a large, mixed princely state right up against the mountains of Kashmir cause
the Hindu Kush and the Himalaya where the Indus river of particular problems
Pakistan begins. The population was 80 per cent Muslim but was for settling the
ruled by a Hindu Maharajah, Hari Singh, from his court at borders of India and
Pakistan?
Srinagar. However, the Muslims were of a different (Sufi) tradition
to the Muslims of the Punjab, now Pakistan. In addition, there
was a considerable Buddhist population in the Ladakh area.
Kashmir adjoined the Punjab and if that had become wholly
Pakistani there would have been no border with India. The
partition of the Punjab resulted in some contiguity with the post-
independence province of Himachal Pradesh but only through
mountainous territory. Most land routes into upper Kashmir were
through Pakistani territory, except one, through the controversial
Gurdaspur district.
It made a lot of sense, both demographically and
geographically, for Kashmir to join Pakistan. The Maharajah for
his part seems to have thought that the British would never
actually leave, forcing him to choose. When it came to pass, he
attempted to model the state’s future on Switzerland’s neutrality.
When that failed, he opted for India: some say because he feared
that Kashmir would suffer communal violence as had Punjab and
Bengal; some say his family feared to live in an Islamic state.

Provocations
The events in Kashmir of 1947–8 are controversial to this day and
subject to nationalist interpretations. According to the Indian
version, Hari Singh tried to secure a standstill agreement as in
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 147

AZAD (Free)
N Pathan
KASHMIR
excursion occupied by
Pakistan
NORTH WEST
FRONTIER
Srinagar Leh
PROVINCE
(Princely states of)
JAMMU and KASHMIR
Rawalpindi

Jammu

RAWALPINDI 1 HIMACHAL
6 2
PUNJAB PRADESH
5 3 (India) (formerly
Lahore Punjab)
Amritsar
PUNJAB 4 n
visio
(Pakistan) u r di
ep
oz
er
F

Indian UTTAR
MULTAN airlift PRADESH
of
a te R
t
s PU
el y A L an
ir nc AW kist Delhi
P AH a
B to P

RAJASTHAN
0 100 200

km

PUNJAB Post-partition province National border

RAWALPINDI Province district divisions ( Tehsils) Radcliffe line (now border)
of Lahore district
1947 border
1 = Sialkot 4 = Lahore Over 60 per cent Hindu/Sikh
Ceasefire line since 1947
2 = Gurdaspur 5 = Sheikhupura
Over 60 per cent Muslim
3 = Amritsar 6 = Gujranwala Strategic (all year) roads
No clear majority

The Punjab and Kashmir in 1947.

Hyderabad, to which Pakistan agreed but India did not. Pakistan

then applied economic pressure for a decision by restricting
supplies along the roads in Pakistani territory. On the night of
21/22 October 1947, Pathan irregular troops, led by Pakistani
officers, entered Kashmir and proceeded towards Srinagar. The
border areas of which they took control are still occupied by
Pakistani troops and are marked on maps as Azad (Free) Kashmir.
According to the Pakistani version, Kashmiri troops had been
harassing Muslims out of Kashmiri villages along the border with
Pakistan in order to create a depopulated zone which was easier
to protect. It was this harassment which provoked the Pathans to
come to their support.
148 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Divergent motives
From this point, there also appear to be divergences in British
and Indian motives.
Hari Singh appealed for Indian military assistance which Patel
was prepared to organise. Nehru, whose family originally came
from Kashmir, is often thought to have secretly arranged for
Kashmir to become Indian. In fact, he repeatedly blocked Singh’s
request on a matter of democratic principle.
One popular Muslim leader in Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah, had
been imprisoned by the Maharajah. Nehru demanded that Singh
release Abdullah and hold a plebiscite to determine transparently
the wishes of the people. Nehru was prepared to accept that the
overall vote might be for Pakistan. He also argued that if it was
for India then whatever land the Pathans had occupied could be
retaken. Singh refused to release Abdullah.
Mountbatten, now governor-general of India, sided with Patel’s
wish to intervene on the narrow legal grounds that princes were
free to decide the fate of their states without plebiscites. However,
he would not agree to military assistance until Hari Singh had
signed the accession document.
It now appears to some historians that the British government,
as distinct from Mountbatten, really wanted Kashmir to belong to
Pakistan. Kashmir was the most northerly area of the former Raj.
Britain retained a strategic interest, supported by the USA, in
monitoring Soviet and Chinese activity across the border. Britain
trusted Muslim Pakistan more than an India governed by Nehru
who openly supported the Soviet Union and Communist China.
Attlee repeatedly refused to support Mountbatten’s hasty actions
in support of India.
Memoirs of Pakistani generals have revealed that a further
strategic interest was the major road running along the Pakistani
side of the border between Lahore and the army headquarters at
Rawalpindi. An Indian Kashmir could allow India to invade and
cut off troop reinforcements to the Punjab in a matter of hours.
Two matters remain confused.

The accession document

First, the records show a flurry of plane flights between Delhi and
Srinagar culminating apparently in a signed accession document,
accompanied by a promise from Hari Singh to Nehru that he
would release Abdullah and hold a plebiscite. The United Nations
has repeatedly called for this plebiscite to be held but India
refuses to organise it until Pakistani troops withdraw from Azad
Kashmir.
Indian troops were airlifted into Srinagar, saved the Maharaja
and held the Pathans back. Whether the airlift started before the
accession was actually signed remains a question. There seems
reason to believe that Patel pulled the wool over Nehru’s eyes for
a crucial few hours and days.
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 149

The accession was certainly claimed as the reason why the

(British) commander-in-chief of the Pakistan army refused to
commit Pakistani troops when the Indian army entered Kashmir.

The Gurdaspur district

Second, it was recalled that the Punjabi Muslim-majority district
of Gurdaspur was actually put on the Indian side of the border.
The official reason was to ensure that Amritsar was not
surrounded by Pakistani territory.
The Kashmir crisis led to an alternative theory that
Mountbatten had put secret pressure on Radcliffe to ensure that
the one last road and rail-link into Kashmir which stayed open
throughout the winter – through Gurdaspur district – stayed in
Indian territory. According to this theory, there must have been a
Mountbatten–Congress plan to gain Kashmir from the start.

The future of Kashmir

Since 1947, there have been several full conflicts between India
and Pakistan over Kashmir. A state of emergency has been in
force from the 1990s to this day. Tens of thousands of Kashmiris
have died in the continual fighting. There is little prospect of
peace at the present time and the United Nations has identified
Kashmir as the conflict most likely to cause the world’s first
nuclear exchange.

The end of Gandhi and Jinnah

Key date

Deaths of Gandhi and Gandhi had been sidelined as the political momentum gathered
Jinnah: 1948 towards independence. He was, however, still a respected figure.
As communal violence erupted, and despite his age, he took
himself to the centre of disturbances. In Bengal, he walked from
village to village, insisting on calm before he moved on. He did
not attempt the same in the Punjab; perhaps even he thought it
beyond hope for a while.
He remained constant to his lifelong view that he should and
could take personal responsibility for the violence and for
promoting religious tolerance by example. He continued to
Key term

Qur’an include readings from the Qur’an at his prayer meetings and
The Muslim holy deliberately chose to be in a Muslim property on independence
book. night. He let it be known that he was so distressed by the
treatment of the Muslims that he was planning to spend what
remained of his life in (East) Pakistan.
This was too much for some. At 5pm on the evening of
30 January 1948 he was walking to his evening prayer meeting
among a crowd of supporters. Three shots were fired at close
range into his chest. He died within minutes. It was later claimed
that his last words were a prayer to the Hindu god Ram. More
credible witnesses reported self-deprecation to the end: he said he
hated being late for prayers.
His assassination was long-feared and leaders braced
themselves for renewed communal attacks. However, it soon
became clear that his killer, Nathuram Godse, was a Hindu
fanatic, incensed by Gandhi’s care for Muslims. Godse was a
150 | Britain and India 1845–1947

member of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, a murky Hindu

fundamentalist organisation. Patel had tolerated the fact that
many RSS supporters were in positions of party or civil authority.
Now, Nehru, the lifelong anti-fascist, demanded that Patel outlaw
the RSS. Nehru broadcast on All-India Radio that ‘the light has
gone out of our lives and there is darkness everywhere’.
Jinnah did not outlive the same year. His lung disease
worsened throughout 1948 and in September he died, aged 71,
in Karachi.
He had achieved a remarkable objective, despite Gandhi’s
opposition, and yet curiously in the end he too adopted a
tolerant, all-embracing position. In August 1947, he declared, in
effect, that Pakistan was a secular not a Muslim state. He
promised:

You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing
to do with the business of the state.

Summary diagram: Aftermath

Migrations

Massacres

Princely states
• Junagadh
• Hyderabad

Kashmir

Death of Jinnah Death of Gandhi

Republic of India
constitution 1950

6 | The Final Constitution(s)

Key date

In 1950, less than three years after independence, on 26 January, India became a
the day identified by Nehru in 1929 as independence day, India republic:
approved a new constitution creating a republic in which an 26 January 1950
elected president replaced the post of governor-general.
 Independence and Partition 1945–7 | 151

Study Guide: AS Question

In the style of Edexcel

Source 1
From: a statement by Jinnah, 29 July 1946, after the decision by
the Muslim League’s all-India council to withdraw the League’s
acceptance of the May statement and draw up plans for direct
action.
Never have we in the whole history of the League done anything
except by constitutional methods. But now we bid goodbye to
constitutional methods. Throughout the negotiations, the parties
with whom we bargained held a pistol at us; one with power and
machine guns behind it, the other with non-cooperation and the
threat to launch mass civil disobedience. We also have a pistol.

Source 2
From: P.J. Marshall, British Empire, published in 1996.
In 1946 Lord Wavell suggested British withdrawal from India, not
because of overwhelming nationalist pressure (on the contrary,
Congress and League were in political deadlock), but because
government was on the verge of collapse. Since both Congress
and the League hoped to inherit the imperial legacy intact, they
swiftly came to the conference table when the British prime
minister, Clement Attlee, instructed Mountbatten to prepare for
Indian independence by a date no later than 1 June 1948.

Source 3
From: Bipan Chandra, India’s Struggle for Independence,
published in 1988.
Why did the British finally quit? Why was partition accepted by
the Congress? The imperialist answer is that independence was
simply the fulfilment of Britain’s mission to assist the Indian
people to self-government. Partition was the unfortunate
consequence of the age-old Hindu–Muslim rift – a consequence
of the two communities’ failure to agree on how and to whom
power was to be transferred. The radical view is that
independence was finally wrested by the mass actions of
1946–7, and the leaders of Congress, frightened by the
revolutionary upsurge, struck a deal by which power was
transferred to them and the nation paid the price of partition.

Use Sources 1, 2 and 3 and your own knowledge.

Do you agree with the view that the threat of popular violence
was primarily responsible for the partition of India in July 1947?
Explain your answer, using Sources 1, 2 and 3 and your own
knowledge. (40 marks)
152 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Exam tips
The cross-references are intended to take you straight to the material
that will help you to answer the question.

Source 3 begins with the key issue of why independence was

accompanied by partition. The question suggests that the prime
reason for this was the threat of popular violence.
In support of the seriousness of the threat of popular violence, the
following points can be developed from the sources:

• The Muslim League all-India council rejected constitutional

methods and called for direct action in July 1946 (Source 1).
• Congress accepted partition because of fear of a revolutionary
upsurge shown in the mass actions of 1946–7 (Source 3).
• Government was on the verge of collapse in 1946 (Source 2).

To counter the claim the following points can be developed from the
sources:
• Partition was the result of political deadlock and disagreement
between Congress and the League (Sources 2 and 3).
• Partition reflected the traditional Hindu–Muslim divisions
(Source 3).
• Jinnah’s statement (Source 1), in spite of the reference to ‘pistol’,
is a call for mass civil disobedience – not for mass violence.
You should use your own knowledge from Chapter 5 to develop or
counter these points, and to add new issues. You could consider:
• army and navy mutinies in 1946 (page 117)
• the electoral successes of both Congress and League in 1946
(page 118)
• the mistakes and misjudgements made by Indian and British
politicians – in particular in relation to the cabinet mission
(pages 118–22)
• the role of Jinnah (page 123 onward)
• the great Calcutta killings (pages 123–5)
• the role of Mountbatten (page 126 onward).

You will need to reach an overall conclusion. How far do you agree
with the statement?
6 Surveying the
Transfer of Power

How might one summarise the transition from imperial territory

to independent nation in comparison to other similar forces and
events?

1 | Character
A predominant feature of Indian history in the twentieth century
would be its relative peacefulness, certainly in relation to the
British ruling power. Of course, there were communal riots
throughout the period and the terrible massacres of the partition
but these were, comparatively speaking, localised and brief,
however violent.
There was no revolutionary overthrow of power, despite the
obvious numerical weakness of the British and the exhaustion of
morale and resources after the Second World War. The British
Raj lived with the collective fear of another Indian Mutiny but, in
retrospect, the greatest danger was that the British would be
exposed as powerless to stop escalating violence between Indians.
Similarly, there was no sustained support for terrorist or
guerrilla tactics in fighting for freedom from the imperial power
as happened in parts of the British Empire and in the empires of
other European powers.
Indeed, the Indian nationalist movement is inextricably
associated with the non-violent campaigns of Gandhi.
Independence would have come without Gandhi but his
leadership determined its character and legacy.
Moreover, the overwhelmingly trouble-free absorption of over
500 princely states into a huge modern democracy must be
judged considerable progress.
Overall, those involved appear to have recognised historical
forces at work, combined with practical problems and crises
beyond the control of the British. The sheer scale of governing
India perhaps engendered mutual caution, pragmatism and a
certain respect.
Accordingly, rather than dramatic events, the history is
characterised, literally, by personal political tactics played out
across constitutional legislation.
154 | Britain and India 1845–1947

2 | Gandhi and Churchill

In this regard, a remarkable feature of the history is the rather
abrupt marginalisation of two of the great figures of the events
and of the twentieth century: Gandhi and Churchill. In each case,
the great leader became a problem and a liability to his cause and
nation.
Gandhi sought integrity in his life’s work. Spiritually, this
involved a large amount of religious tolerance but ultimately his
commitment was to Hindu power and responsibility. Politically
and economically, his vision involved turning the clock back
1000 years. Knowing this was unrealistic, but unwilling to
compromise personally, perhaps the most astute of Gandhi’s
many moves was to ensure that Nehru came to prominence in
Congress. Nehru was modern, secular and socialist – the
complete opposite of Gandhi – but he was the future for India
and he was prepared to do the necessary political deals that
Gandhi had less and less time for.
Churchill, like Gandhi, was driven by a conservative vision. In
his case, it was imperial power and the moral obligation of white
Europeans to govern other peoples for their own good. His
refusal to contemplate independence, indeed his anger at the
idea, exasperated political colleagues, not least President
Roosevelt. Churchill was far-sighted in seeing the shape of the
postwar world and thought that Britain’s Empire could match,
and would be needed to match, the two new superpowers of the
USA and the Soviet Union. However, his vision, like Gandhi’s, was
out of step with the postwar desire of the British for a modern,
socialist society. For a Britain impoverished by the Second World
War, an affordable welfare state was more important than the
pomp of empire.

3 | Jinnah and Pakistan

Jinnah, by contrast, appears to have achieved more success than
he thought realistic. At the very start of the period, the last
Mughal Emperor was deposed. For a long time, the Muslim
League was not that well supported by Muslim voters. However,
eventual election success, rejection of political cooperation by
Congress and loyalty to the British during the war handed Jinnah
the opportunity to make demands for Muslim recognition which,
seemingly, led inexorably to the creation of Pakistan. Jinnah,
secular and tolerant, found himself governor-general of a brand
new Muslim nation-state.
The creation of Pakistan is the most debatable feature of the
period. Descriptions of personal achievement beg the question by
assuming that this was a desired, and desirable, goal. There is
considerable evidence that all parties simply found themselves
with dwindling time and will to pursue other solutions.
Jinnah and the Muslim League initially used vague demands
for one or perhaps two separate Muslim states in the hope of a
stronger position in a single India. Even at the end, support for
 Surveying the Transfer of Power | 155

the idea was strongest in areas well away from the territory likely
to become Pakistan.
Nehru, Patel and Congress lost the political initiative in the
drive towards independence created by the postwar British
Labour government. Then they lost their patience and agreed
with the Muslim demand, thinking that the new Pakistan would
collapse, along with Muslim leadership, and be quickly
reabsorbed into a Congress-dominated India.

4 | Partition
For the British, partition was more complicated than desired but
certainly not unprecedented. They had done more or less the
same in Ireland and had carved up the Ottoman Empire
(including promising the territory of Palestine to both Arabs and
Jews). Moreover, a loyal Muslim Pakistan brought strategic
securities in the region to balance an India which was likely to be
anti-British, pro-Soviet and pro-Communist China.
In the longer view, the partition massacres, which have been
blamed on the hasty departure of the British, were also far from
unique. For example, the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s led
to vicious ethnic conflict and, arguably, the conflict within Iraq is
a struggle by religious and ethnic groups for regional control
within an undesired state (created by the British).

5 | Looking to the Future

We should also note that, since independence, India has
continued to suffer from internal religious violence, as well as
wars with Pakistan and China, which also occupies Indian
territory in the far north. However, its economy is now booming
and the country looks set to be a global power in the twenty-first
century.
Pakistan’s history has been less happy. Jinnah’s successor,
Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated in 1951 and a military
dictatorship held power until elections were finally held in 1969.
In East Pakistan, a separatist party took every seat and when their
leader, Sheikh Rahman, was arrested, a war of independence
began in 1971. Indian troops intervened and the outcome was the
fully recognised state of Bangladesh. Despite long-term support
by the United States (and Britain), Pakistan remains a fragile,
troubled state.
Viceroys of British India
1856–62 Canning Charles, 1st Earl of Canning
1862–3 Elgin Bruce, James, 8th Earl of Elgin
1863–9 Lawrence Lawrence, Sir John
1869–72 Mayo Bourke, Richard, 6th Earl of Mayo
1872–6 Northbrook Baring, Thomas, 1st Earl of
Northbrook
1876–80 Lytton Edward, 1st Earl of Lytton
1880–4 Ripon Robinson, George, 1st Marquess of
Ripon
1884–8 Dufferin Blackwood, Frederick, 1st Marquess
of Dufferin & Ava
1888–94 Lansdowne Petty-Fitzmaurice, Henry,
5th Marquess of Lansdowne
1894–8 Elgin Bruce, Victor, 9th Earl of Elgin
1898–1905 Curzon George, 1st Marquess Curzon of
Keddleston
1905–10 Minto Elliot, Gilbert, 4th Earl of Minto
1910–16 Hardinge Charles, 1st Baron of Penshurst
1916–21 Chelmsford Thesiger, Frederic, 1st Viscount
Chelmsford
1921–6 Reading Isaacs, Rufus, 1st Marquess of
Reading
1926–31 Irwin Wood, Edward, Lord Irwin
& 1st Earl of Halifax
1931–6 Willingdon Freeman-Thomas, Freeman,
1st Marquess of Willingdon

1936–43 Linlithgow Hope, Victor, 2nd Marquess

of Linlithgow
1943–7 Wavell Wavell, Archibald, 1st Viscount
& Earl Wavell

1947 Mountbatten Mountbatten, Louis, 1st Viscount

& Earl Mountbatten
Glossary
Accession The process of peacefully Dhoti Loin cloth.
merging into a larger country.
District A formal subdivision of a
Ahimsa Literal meaning is non-violence. province.

Annexation Forced but peaceful Divide and rule Imperialist strategy,

conquest of territory. from Romans onward, of provoking
enmities to prevent subject groups uniting
Ashram Small religious, often farming, in opposition.
community.
Dominion status A category of self-
Babu Bengali term for clerk. government within the British Empire
denoting a full nation.
Bolshevik A member of the majority,
thus the political group that emerged as Durbar Imperial celebration.
leader of the revolution.
Dyarchy Obscure term from classical
Cartographical Relating to maps. Greek meaning two-part power.

Caste A rigid public social division. Excise A tax on goods made inside the
Derived from a Portuguese word. country.

Censure A formal political reprimand. Federal Government with considerable

regional powers.
Communal Relating to a religious
community across the whole population. For the duration Became a common
phrase to describe the unknown length of
Communism The political philosophy of the war.
a classless society with workers in power;
ideology of the Soviet Union. Franchise The conditions making people
eligible to vote.
Congress A meeting.
Ghadr Translates as mutiny.
Constituent assembly A parliament with
the sole task of designing a constitution. The Great Game The spying and
skirmishing that accompanied the
Contiguous A formal term for touching continuing Russo-British rivalry and
or adjoining. competition.

Cottage industry Pre-factory Gurdwara Sikh temple.

organisation of home weaving or
workshops, for example. Hansard Published transcripts of
parliamentary debates.
Demobilised Released from the armed
forces. Harijans Translates as sons of god.

Demographic Relating to population. Hartal Strike action, refusal to work.

158 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Hindustan Literally the land beyond the Orders-in-council Legislation approved

Indus (coming from the west) – an Arab or by a viceroy without full parliamentary
Mughal perspective. scrutiny.

Home affairs Government department Ottoman Empire Islamic Empire of the

for law, order and justice. Middle East and modern Turkey.

Hostage theory Vulnerable minorities in Pacifism Refusal to fight in wartime.

each country would ensure mutual Pact An agreement between political
protection. allies.
Indigenous People native to a place (but Panchayat Assembly (originally of five
not primitive). village elders).

Indigo Purple dye from the leaves of a Pandemic Global epidemic.

plant.
Paramount power A diplomatic term for
Insurgency A prolonged uprising. the most powerful force, often an
occupying army.
Interned Imprisoned without trial.
Parsi Ancient Iranian religion.
Jatha A squad.
Partition The formal division of a state
Khadi Home-spun cloth or clothing. or province.

Khalifah Deputy of the founder of Islam, Peripatetic Moving round from one
sometimes caliph. workplace to another.

Khilafat Campaign to protect the last Plebiscite A vote of the whole

link with the medieval caliphs or deputies population on constitutional issues.
of the prophet Muhammad.
Plenipotentiary powers The capacity to
Lathi A steel-tipped cane. make decisions without approval from
government.
Mahasabha Literally meaning great
association. Polytheistic A religion with many gods
and goddesses.
Mandated Instructed by a political
organisation. Proto-nationalist A first example or
experiment, before adoption of the aims
Martial law Army imposes its own rules, of nationalism.
suspends civil courts and justice.
Punjab Meaning five rivers.
Mesopotamia The Middle East,
Purna swaraj Total independence.
especially now Iraq, from the Greek for
between rivers (the Tigris and Euphrates Qur’an The Muslim holy book.
in Iraq).
R.I. Rex Imperator, Latin for
Minute An official document. King-Emperor.

Official opposition The largest minority Realpolitik A term for political leverage,
group in a parliament. borrowed from the German language.
 Glossary | 159

Renaissance A rebirth or flowering of Secular Public, non-religious affairs.

culture.
Seditious Encouraging overthrow of a
Resolution A formal decision at a government.
meeting, often voted on.
Sepoy An Indian soldier.
Round table conference A meeting of
comprehensive inclusion with all opinions Surety A deposit lost in the event of
equally considered. breaking the law.
Rupee The currency of India. Swadesh A campaign not to buy
something – known as a boycott in
Sabha An association. English.

Sacred cow In Hinduism actual cows are Swaraj Literally self-rule, thus meaning
sacred; the term is widely used to indicate independence.
a protected idea.
Ulster Province in Ireland allowed to
Sanskrit An ancient Indian language. remain British.
Satyagraha Literal meaning is truth-force Viceroy The deputy for a monarch.
or soul-force.
White Man’s Burden The perceived duty
Scapegoat A person chosen to carry the to govern so-called inferior races and
blame for others. countries.
Scheduled castes Political term for the White paper A firm set of proposals for
lowest caste, commonly known as legislation.
untouchables or dalits.

Secede Peacefully break away from a

state.
Index
Accession 148 response to home rule 46
Ahimsa 62 response to partition of Bengal 34, 36, 37–8
Aligarh movement 17–18, 38 see also specific policies
All-India Home Rule League 45–6 Cripps mission 100–2
All-India Muslim League, see Muslim Cripps, Sir Stafford 100
League Curzon, Lord 20, 31–3, 34, 36, 40, 42
Amritsar Massacre 13, 49–54, 61, 62, 64, 65,
70 Dalhousie, Lord 10, 82
Andaman Islands 140 Dalits, see Untouchables
Atlantic Charter 99–100 Delhi as capital 42
Attlee, Clement 118, 125–6 Dominion Declaration 69, 71, 74
Dyarchy 55–6
Babu 16, 20 Dyer, General 52–4
Bengal 2, 6, 25, 33, 42, 68, 78, 88, 93, 98, 118,
123, 125, 129, 138 East India Company 7–9, 14
Army 12 Election (1937) 83–8
famine 84, 107–8 Election (1946) 118, 138–9
partition 33, 34–5
reunification 39–40, 41 First World War 49–50
Besant, Mrs Annie 45, 46–7
Border between India and Pakistan 137–40, Gandhi, Mohandas Karamchand (later
141 Mahatma) 5, 18–19, 26, 47, 51, 54, 63–4,
Bose, Subhas Chandra 68, 71, 95–8 75, 83, 84, 103, 119, 120, 124
Brahmins 5, 11 and Bose 98
British and Churchill 154
cabinet mission (1946) 118–20 and Jinnah 87
government of India 7–10, 14–15, 16–19, and Nehru 70, 98, 124–5, 154
20–4 and Quit India resolution 102
see also specific policies assassination 149–50
fasts 61, 79, 104
Calcutta killings 123–4 national campaigns 61, 153,
Castes 5, 11 see also individual campaigns
Chauri Chaura 66 reaction to Second World War 92, 102
Christians 15, 39 vow of silence 131
representation at Congress 121, 128 Gandhi–Irwin Pact 75–6, 77–8, 79
Churchill, Winston Spencer 77 Ghadr movement 44
as prime minister 94–5, 99–100 Gokhale, Gopal Krishna 38
attitude to India 106–7 Government of India Act
reaction to Gandhi–Irwin Pact 76 (1919) 54–6
Civil disobedience 61, 74, 75, 76, 78–9, 94, 95, (1935) 69, 80–2
102, 103, 105, 116, see also individual Gurdaspur district 149
campaigns
Congress Hindus 4, 5, 924, 25, 39, 42, 46, 63, 65, 70, 85,
development to 1905: 33 94, 103, 117, 119, 120, 123, 125, 131,
formation 19 135, 136, 143, 144, 145, 149–50, see also
rejection of Cripps mission 101–2 Congress
 Index | 161

Hitler, Adolf 92, 95, 96 Mountbatten, Lord Louis 126–9, 137

Home Rule League 45–7 Mughals 6, 7
Hostage theory 94 Muslim League 18, 39, 40, 47–8, 67, 68–9, 82,
Hunter Inquiry 52–4 85, 87, 92–4, 125, 140, 154–5,
Hyderabad 146, 147 relationship with Congress 85, 101, 124
see also Calcutta killings;
Ilbert Bill 18–19, 36 Jinnah, Muhammad Ali; Pakistan
Independence of India Act 136 Muslims 6, 16, 17, 25, 35, 39–40, 42, 93–3,
Independence of India and Pakistan 140 110, 118, 123, see also Islam; Muslim
India League
geography 2–4 Mutinies 44, 52, 117, 153, see also Indian
language 4 Mutiny
religion 4–7, see also specific religions
Indian Civil Service (ICS) 16, 33, 98, 108 Nehru, Jawaharlal 68, 70–1, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85,
Indian Councils Act (1909) 19, 41–2 92, 95, 116, 124, 125, 128, 129, 148, 154
Indian Mutiny 10–13 broadcast on Gandhi’s death 150
Indian National Army 95–8, 117 relationship with Mountbattens 127, 128,
Indian National Congress, see Congress 130
Interim government 124 speech on India’s independence 142
Islam 4, 6, 11, 25, 49, 65, 125, 146 Nehru, Pandit Motilal, see Nehru Report 68
conversion of low-status Hindus 5, 6 Nehru Report 67, 68–9, 87–8
Non-cooperation movement
Jallianwala Bagh meeting 52 (1919) 62, 64
Japan 95–7 (1920) 64–6
Jinnah, Muhammad Ali 18, 26, 41, 48, 51, 65,
67, 68, 69, 87–8, 92–4, 105, 107, 110, 120, Pakistan 85–6, 110, 116–21, see also Partition
124, 128, 129, 133, 137 Panthic Pratinidhi 133
becoming leader of Muslim League 85, 86 Parsi 68
creation of Pakistan 93–4, 110, 119, 121–2, representation at Congress 121
131, 138–9 Partition 117
death 150 council 136–7
failing health 121, 125–6 events following 143–50
London talks 125–6 Plan Balkan 129–30
use of direct action 123 Princely states 22, 82, 133–4, 145–6
Junagadh 145–6 Punjab 2, 7, 12, 17, 25, 44, 68, 94, 110, 117,
129, 131, 138, 143, 145, 146, 147, see also
Karim, Abdul 15 Amritsar Massacre
Kashmir 146–7, 148, 149 Purna Swaraj 71, 75, 77
Khilafat 64, 65
Quit India resolution 102
Lahore Resolution 92–4
Linlithgow, Lord 81, 82–3, 84, 92, 94–5, 101–2, Radcliffe, Sir Cyril KC 138, 139, 140, 142, 149
104, 105 Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh 150
London talks 125–6 Revolutionary Movement Ordinance 103
Lucknow Pact 39, 40, 47–8, 68, 88 Roosevelt, Franklin D. 99–100, 101
Round table conferences 74–8
Marathas 6–7 Rowlatt Act 50–1, 52, 54, 61, 62, 87
Menon Plan 130–2 Royal Proclamation (1858) 15
Montagu declaration 46, 48–9
Montagu–Chelmsford reforms 54–6, 67 Salt March 71–4
Moplah rebellion 65 Sati 9
Morley–Minto reforms 40–1 Satyagraha 61–2
162 | Britain and India 1845–1947

Scheduled castes, see Untouchables Hari 146–7, 148

Second World War 92, 99–100 Swadesh 62
Self-government 38, 55, 56, 82, 99 Swaraj 62
Sepoys 11–12
Sikhs 7, 12, 25, 44, 68, 71, 75, 94, 117, 119, Tagore, Rabindranath 51
133, 136, 138, 139, 143 Thuggee 9
position in Pakistan 133 Tilak, Bal Gangadhar 39, 45
representation at Congress 121
see also Amritsar Massacre; Partition; Untouchables 5, 11, 63, 78
Singh, Balder representation at Congress 121, 128
Simla 18, 39–40
Conference (1945) 109–10 Viceroys 14, 20, 21–2, 55, 156, see also specific
Conference (1946) 120–1 individuals
Simon Commission 67, 68, 69, 75, 80 Victoria, Queen 15
Singh
Balder 125, 131, 133 Wavell, Lord 106, 108–9, 116