UPSC MainsHISTORY-PAPER-II201420 Marks
Q9.

“Why did the British finally quit India on 15th August, 1947 ? The Imperialist answer is that independence was simply the fulfilment of Britain's self-appointed mission to assist the Indian people to self-government.” Examine.

How to Approach

This question requires a nuanced understanding of the factors leading to Indian independence. While the 'imperialist answer' provides one perspective, a comprehensive response must critically examine it alongside other crucial factors. The answer should explore the economic exploitation, political awakening, social movements, and the impact of World War II. Structure the answer by first acknowledging the imperialist narrative, then systematically dismantling it by presenting counter-arguments and alternative explanations. Focus on the limitations of the 'self-government' mission claim and the compelling reasons for Britain's withdrawal.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

The British departure from India on August 15, 1947, marked the end of nearly two centuries of colonial rule. The official British narrative often framed this event as the culmination of a benevolent mission – assisting India towards self-governance. This perspective, however, presents a simplified and self-serving account. While constitutional reforms were indeed enacted, attributing independence solely to Britain’s altruistic intentions overlooks the complex interplay of socio-economic pressures, nationalist movements, and geopolitical realities that ultimately compelled the British to relinquish control. This answer will examine the validity of the imperialist explanation, highlighting its limitations and presenting a more comprehensive understanding of the factors driving British withdrawal.

The Imperialist Narrative: A Benevolent Transition?

The British claim that independence was merely the fulfillment of a pre-ordained mission to guide India towards self-government rests on the gradual introduction of representative institutions through acts like the Indian Councils Act of 1861, the Indian Councils Act of 1892, the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909, the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919, and finally, the Government of India Act of 1935. These acts progressively expanded Indian participation in governance, culminating in provincial autonomy. The narrative suggests a planned handover, demonstrating Britain’s commitment to responsible colonialism.

Deconstructing the Imperialist Argument: Economic Factors

However, this narrative conveniently ignores the devastating economic impact of British rule. India was systematically de-industrialized, its traditional industries crippled to serve as a market for British manufactured goods. The drain of wealth, as famously articulated by Dadabhai Naoroji in his book ‘Poverty and Un-British Rule in India’ (1876), siphoned off resources, hindering India’s economic development. The Great Depression of the 1930s and the subsequent economic hardships further exacerbated the situation, fueling discontent and making the cost of maintaining the empire increasingly unsustainable. Post-World War II, Britain was heavily indebted and lacked the financial resources to continue administering India effectively.

The Rise of Indian Nationalism and Mass Movements

The assertion of a benevolent handover also downplays the relentless struggle for independence waged by Indian nationalists. The Indian National Congress, founded in 1885, initially advocated for reforms within the British system, but gradually adopted a more assertive stance. Mass movements like the Swadeshi Movement (1905-1911), the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922), the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-1934), and the Quit India Movement (1942) demonstrated the widespread desire for complete independence. These movements, led by figures like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Subhas Chandra Bose, mobilized millions and made it increasingly difficult for the British to govern.

The Impact of World War II

World War II proved to be a pivotal turning point. Britain’s war effort severely strained its resources, and the war exposed the vulnerability of the empire. The fall of Southeast Asian colonies to Japan demonstrated that Britain was not invincible. Furthermore, the war radicalized Indian nationalists, with many advocating for immediate independence in exchange for support. The INA trials (1945-46) further inflamed nationalist sentiments and eroded loyalty to the British Crown. The Labour government, elected in 1945, was more sympathetic to Indian aspirations for independence than its Conservative predecessor.

The Partition and the Communal Question

The communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims, exacerbated by British policies of ‘divide and rule’, played a significant role in the final decision. The Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, demanded a separate Muslim state, Pakistan. The British, facing increasing pressure and unable to reconcile the conflicting demands of the Congress and the League, ultimately opted for partition as a means of expediting their withdrawal. The violence surrounding partition, while tragic, arguably hastened the British exit, as maintaining order became increasingly impossible.

The Role of International Pressure

Post-war, international pressure from the United States and the Soviet Union also contributed to the British decision. Both superpowers were critical of colonialism and advocated for self-determination. The US, in particular, exerted economic pressure on Britain to grant independence to its colonies. The changing global landscape, marked by the rise of anti-colonial movements worldwide, further diminished Britain’s ability to maintain its empire.

Factor Impact on British Decision
Economic Strain Post-WWII debt, unsustainable cost of maintaining the empire
Nationalist Movements Increased pressure, civil disobedience, administrative difficulties
WWII Weakening Exposed British vulnerability, radicalized nationalists
Communal Tensions Partition as a solution, hastened withdrawal
International Pressure US and Soviet opposition to colonialism

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the British narrative of a planned handover to self-government holds a degree of truth in terms of constitutional developments, it is a profoundly incomplete and self-serving explanation. The British quit India not primarily out of altruism, but due to a confluence of factors – economic exhaustion, the relentless pressure of Indian nationalist movements, the impact of World War II, the complexities of communal politics, and growing international opposition to colonialism. The decision to partition, though regrettable, ultimately facilitated a quicker British exit. The imperialist answer, therefore, represents a selective interpretation of history, obscuring the true drivers of India’s independence.

Answer Length

This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Drain of Wealth
The transfer of economic resources from India to Britain during the colonial period, primarily through unfair trade practices, excessive taxation, and the cost of administering the empire.
Dyarchy
A system of government where two people or groups share power, as introduced in the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, with a British Governor and an Indian Minister sharing responsibility for provincial administration.

Key Statistics

India’s share of the world’s GDP declined from 22.6% in 1700 to 3.8% in 1938 under British rule.

Source: Angus Maddison, Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030 AD (2007)

British imports into India rose from 3.5% of total Indian imports in 1813 to 20.8% in 1833, demonstrating the economic dominance established by the British East India Company.

Source: Various historical economic studies (knowledge cutoff 2021)

Examples

The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre (1919)

This event, where British troops fired on unarmed Indian civilians, galvanized the nationalist movement and fueled widespread anti-British sentiment, demonstrating the repressive nature of colonial rule.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was partition inevitable?

While communal tensions existed, the extent to which partition was inevitable is debated. Some historians argue that British policies exacerbated these tensions, making partition more likely. Others believe that the irreconcilable demands of the Congress and the Muslim League made a united India unsustainable.

Topics Covered

HistoryModern IndiaDecolonizationBritish ColonialismIndian Independence