A Glimpse into what compelled the British to leave India and ‘give us Independence’ !
At the stroke of the midnight hour on August 14-15, 1947, India gained Independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The Indian Independence Act, 1947 transferred the sovereign power over British India from the British Parliament to the Constituent Assembly of India. (By the same Act, India was partitioned and with regard to the territory falling in Pakistan, the sovereign power was transferred to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.)
The sovereignty lost in a series of bloody wars stood returned to the people of India. However, the Independence of India was neither a voluntary withdrawal nor a forced extraction by a nationalist revolution. The decolonisation of the British Empire, on which the sun never set, was a case of failed politics of bait and switch against a mass non-violent movement. The engagements from 1917, after World War 1, to the end of the Empire in 1947 bear out the same. Imperial Britain was obliged to recognise Independence when it was driven into a corner.
About India, Robb writes :
“Initially, the transfer of power in India appears to validate the notion that Britain embraced decolonisation as a voluntary process. Less than two years after gaining power, Clement Atlee’s Government had already announced a date upon which the Raj, the ‘jewel in the crown’ of Britain’s empire, was to be terminated in favour of an independent Indian state. This hurried retreat, unsurprisingly described by Churchill as a ‘scuttle’, was complete by August 1947. The most prestigious of Britain’s colonial possessions had been hurriedly liquidated in an act that signified Britain’s unwillingness to maintain its imperial burden”.
This is, of course, a rather inaccurate account of the end of British rule in India. Indeed, the transition was rushed, and Atlee’s Government had made a clear declaration of its intent to relinquish British control over the subcontinent. Arguably, however, this was done out of necessity rather than choice. The immense growth in nationalist sentiment in India throughout World War 2 effectively guaranteed that immediate Indian Independence was a fait accompli. As [British academic] David Sanders notes, Atlee’s Government ‘had recognized that the Raj could not be preserved in the face of continued and growing nationalist-inspired civil disorder’. Given Britain’s enhanced defence obligations in the immediate aftermath of World War 2, Atlee held that ‘in view of our commitments all over the world we have not the military force to hold India against a widespread guerrilla movement or to reconquer India’, and that ‘we should have world opinion against us and be placed in an impossible position at UNO [United Nations Organisation]’.
Fundamentally, Britain’s position in India following 1945 was untenable. Britain lacked neither the manpower nor the political support to hold India against its will any longer. Ronald Hyam’s statement that ‘the transfer of power in India must be considered a geopolitically prudent response to the realities of declining power’ reflects the realism of the situation. Britain, put simply, had no other choice. It would therefore be quite inaccurate to state that India was voluntarily ‘given up.” (Emphasis supplied)
That nothing comes of nothing is a known proverb. The British Parliament had absolute sovereign power over India. There was no obligation in international law which obliged the British to decolonise its possessions. The self-determination declaration in the Atlantic Charter was a self-imposed burden. The British imperialists tried to play Machiavellian politics by granting concessions to Indians to participate in governance in 1919, partial self-rule in 1935 and finally, dominion status in 1942. However, each time its concessions or overtures were smartly rejected by the INC.
If the demand of Independence was not met, the threat of India lapsing into civil unrest loomed large. The revolutionaries instilled such fears. The Indian National Army, led by nationalist Subhash Chandra Bose, had its deterrent effect. The Naval mutiny in 1946 sent strong signals. The British were indeed prima facie compelled to grant Independence. However, a detailed research on this issue is for historians to ponder over.
(Courtesy : Excerpts from Mohan V Katarki’s [a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India] Article on theleaflet.in)
What did the British Prime Minister Clement Atlee say at that time ?
It was British Prime Minister Clement Atlee who, when granting Independence to India, said that Gandhi’s non-violence movement had next to zero effect on the British. In corroboration, Chief Justice PB Chakrabarty of the Kolkata High Court, who had earlier served as acting Governor of West Bengal, disclosed the following in a letter addressed to the publisher of Ramesh Chandra Majumdar’s book A History of Bengal :
“You have fulfilled a noble task by persuading Dr. Majumdar to write this history of Bengal and publishing it … In the preface of the book Dr. Majumdar has written that he could not accept the thesis that Indian Independence was brought about solely, or predominantly by the non-violent civil disobedience movement of Gandhi. When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us Independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor’s palace at Calcutta during his tour of India.
At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him was that since Gandhi’s ‘Quit India’ movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave ?
In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji [Subhash Chandra Bose]. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee’s lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, “m-i-n-i-m-a-l !”
(Courtesy : Excerpts from Dr. Susmit Kumar’s Article on susmitkumar.net/)
| Pre- independent India had been hurriedly liquidated in an act that signified Britain’s unwillingness to maintain its imperial burden
India had been hurriedly liquidated in an act that signified Britain’s unwillingness to maintain its imperial burden ! |