Why did the British ACTUALLY leave India?
# Gandhi’s Non-Violent movement/struggle is considered to be the main reason why the British left India, at least in textbooks. While this non-violent people’s revolution was a major factor in getting Independence, it was far from being the only reason. Let’s remember that the British had been handling the challenges that Gandhi and INC posed, for over two-and-a-half decades – in 1947.
# Was Subhas Chandra Bose the reason? Subhas Chandra Bose managed to build an army from outside India, and even threatened the British in Myanmar and North-East India. But once the Japanese troops (who were helping him alongside) left, his army couldn’t do much against the superior British forces.
People consider Subhas’s Indian forces fighting against our own British Indian forces as one of the lowest points in colonial India. Because, technically, Indians were fighting Indians! But when you read the ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ point in this article, you’ll change your mind.
# Was Hitler and his Second World War the reason? The WWII was a major factor. World War II created conditions that eventually aided Indian Independence. But if the world war was the main factor, India would have won Independence in 1918, after the first world war when similar conditions prevailed. Or, India would have gotten freedom in 1945 when the war ended and the British were at their weakest. That too didn’t happen.
What happened from 1945 to 1947?
Immediately after World War II, the British, like any good colonialist, attempted to consolidate and strengthen their hold on India. But the following three factors, along with the above-mentioned ones, finally ensured the British left India.
# Economic Losses
Due to the second world war, the British needed lot of ammunition, soldiers, and other wartime materials. India provided them. But that did not come for free – the British had to pay for them. Although they used the taxes collected in India to pay, it was insufficient. So they had to pay from their own pockets.
The British thought they could resume making profits out of India after the war ended. But they couldn’t.
# Religious Conflicts
The Hindu-Muslim violence did not start after the partition was announced. It started right after the World War II because Indians knew the British were leaving, and were concerned about the power structures in the Independent nation.
Although both agreed to it later, initially, Gandhi did not want partition. Neither did Jinnah. But the idea was pushed by the last British Governor General Mountbatten who saw it as the only feasible solution to the religious unrest.
Unless the British had seen the Religious conflicts as an administrative nightmare, they wouldn’t have come to this conclusion.
One rare occasion when internal/religious conflict actually helped us!
# Sepoy Mutiny
No, this is not the Sepoy Mutiny that happened in 1857. This was the upcoming Sepoy Mutiny that would have happened in 1947-48 had the British not left India.
When the British left India, just over 0.1 million British administrators were ruling 300 million Indians. Guess what was their trump card? Yes, the British Indian soldiers (sepoys).
In 1857, when the British Indian Sepoys mutinied, Britain quickly dispatched soldiers from home. But in 1945, because of Hitler’s world war, the British forces in Europe were hugely depleted.
Emboldened by the Japanese & Bose’s victories against the British in Asia, the British Indian soldiers saw the European supremacy theory folding to dust.
The British Indian soldiers helped the British in their world war but got nothing in return.
The British-trained Indian soldiers captured from Nethaji’s force were being jailed and unfairly tried for treason.
All this infuriated the British Indian soldiers and mutities had already began in the British Indian army and the navy during 1945-47.
How could the British administrators be secure if they couldn’t depend on their own force? In the end, when it mattered, the British Indian sepoys demonstrated their disloyalty to the British.
Whatever the Indian sepoys might have done to fellow Indians in the past, what they did in 1945-47 was crucial in the British deciding to leave India.
Did Gandhi & INC not play a major role in helping us gain Freedom?
They did.
In 1942, when Churchill diverted Indian foodgrains to aid Britain’s war efforts in Europe and created the Britian-made famine in Bengal, Gandhi and the members of INC were furious.
Gandhi started the Quit India movement, but he realized that the entire INC top command was going to be jailed – as usual.
So this time Gandhi did something different.
Instead of directing the protest from top-down, he let the masses take charge of the revolution and keep the flame going even in the absence of the leaders. Even if that meant using some violence. This bit he didn’t say, but it was implied.
People took the cue and gave hell to the British administrators and merchants across the Indian subcontinent.
No wonder the British wanted to leave India in 1947, instead of 1948 as they had planned earlier.
My personal opinion is the British had nothing more to loot from India and take to their country. And, therefore, keeping India became a burden on their economy. So they gave independence. India is copying USA in many fields. But did not copy on this one. USA kicked the British out of their nation and declared independence. They did not ask for and got independence. India should have done that.
I think India would have tried to get Independence through force in the 19th Century, but they were unable to. The smaller kingdoms were too divided to win over the British.
Destination Infinity
Interesting point of view! Though the British dominated us, they left us with a lot to sustain and grow. The Indian railways are one of the best kinds of transportation that they have introduced to us.
The Indian Railways was initially constructed to move the goods (freight) needed by the British across the nation. Passenger movement was a just a consequence.
Destination Infinity
There are so many different theories. I think all are true in some way.
Another one that I have read is that Britain was ready to give autonomy to India long back, I guess in 1935 or so. The idea was to make India independent in a phased manner. But we wanted “full independence” in one shot, and nothing else. And that delayed the whole thing, and it became such a big mess.
Regarding, Hindu-Muslim issue, it’s true, it pre-dates independence. As early as 1905 Bengal was partitioned based on religious grounds. But after six years, the division was reversed.
The issue was, Indians couldn’t trust the British. They kept promising many things but never kept their word. So maybe their offer of autonomy wasn’t convincing enough!
Destination Infinity
Very well put, we always learn from one perspective but it is so important to look at it from a holistic point of view
All perspectives are individual opinions… Even people living in England or India back then wouldn’t have had the full perspective.
Destination Infinity
Should be because, in 1946, Britain announced it would grant India independence. No longer able to afford to administer the country, it wanted to leave as quickly as possible. The last viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, set the date as 15 August 1947.