Unit 2- India Flashcards
How to structure the source question?
Introduction
1st paragraph- Nature, origin, purpose, content, own knowledge, the value of both sources as a set
2nd paragraph- Own knowledge, nature, origin, purpose, content, value of both sources as a set
Conclusion
Use phrases like:
1) Weight that can be given to ……..’s evidence is considerable
2) What would interest an historian in these two documents is that they come from a time just after ……. when tensions were at a height
3) Together, the two sources, coming as they do from a pivotal moment in Indian history, shed light on past protests and riots and provide pointers for the future
4) This apparently conciliatory approach that Source …. seems to be taking could be a reaction to …….
5) The historian might conclude that source ….. would be useful in demonstrating…… and source ……
6) In conclusion, it is important to appreciate that there are some issues of which the historian should be aware when using these sources in conjunction to asses the e.g tensions between Congress and Raj
7) Thus for an historian to have access to a source that gives some insight into…… is of immense value
8) However the source cannot be taken at face value and that makes it even more valuable for the historian
Amritsar Massacre 1919
Hunter Report 1920
General Dyer’s role was questioned at the time and was the main focus of two later enquiries, one by the Hunter Commission initiated by the British government and one by the Indian National Congress. Thus for an historian to have access to a source that gives some insight into Dyer’s motives in acting as he did, is of immense value
He claims that his motive driving his actions was to ‘fire until the crowd dispersed’ however it seems that he as threatened by the thousands of people gathered in Amritsar
He also wanted to send a clear message to the whole of the province that the reaction to the Rowlatt Acts,earlier that year, he has witnessed in Amritsar would not be tolerated by the British authorities
Governor of Punjab- Micheal O’ Dwyer believed that the rioting in Amritsar that preceded the massacre was the first stage of a carefully planned uprising that would likely replicate the Indian Mutiny of 1857
could be seen to be justifying his actions
Hunter Report 1920- Initiated by Montagu who was angered by the massacre report led by Chairman Hunter
Dyer said he would have ‘razed Amritsar to the ground’
Dyer was forced to resign and House of Lords said it went too far censuring Dyer
Punjab sub-committee- reported ‘contempt and distrust’ between Indians and British
Tensions between the Raj and Congress in the years 1920-22?
Amritsar Massacre 1919
Salt satyagraha campaign 1920-22
Hunter Commission 1920
Tension between the Raj and the Indians was common ranging from low level grumbling to outright riot
Tensions were at a height after the Amritsar Massacre
The support for General Dyer from large sections of British society in India appalled most Indians, whereas the Raj, intent on main ting their administration, viewed the Punjab as a powder keg ready for rebellion
Gandhi persuaded Congress to adopt his new approach his philosophy of satyagraha, the main tenet of which was that violence inhibits the individual’s search for the truth- moving away from riot and murder as seen in the protests against the partition of Bengal
Believed in non-violence and non-cooperation
Gandhi’s intention- the government would change its ways
Non cooperation involved things like boycott of elections, law courts, the removal of children from schools and withholding taxes
By the Indian government, non-cooperation was unconstitutional, and that action will only be taken against those who go beyond the limits of the organisers
Authorities were at a loss on how to deal with the new approach and were trying to adopt a conciliatory approach failing to maintain law and order
May be a reaction to the report of the Hunter Commission published in May 1920- no justification for the actions taken by General Dyer in initiating the massacre at Amritsar- the Raj were trying the not alienate Indian opinion out of fear of an uprising
Gandhi- provocative approach accusing the Viceroy of a ‘light hearted approach’ and ‘callous disregard of the feeling of Indians’.
Round Table Conferences:
1930-32
1st
Gandhi-Irwin Pact 1931
London Round Table Conferences, organised as a result of the report from the Simon Commission of 1928 presented an opportunity to work out the basis of a new constitution for India
The main interested parties here were the British government and its representatives in India, Congress and the Muslim League
Other parties would be represents such as the Indian princes but it was the actions of the main players that was going to determine the outcome
It was the British gov. who had instigated the Simon Commission’s investigation into the working of the 1919 Government of India Act, and who had responded to recommendations in the Commission’s report by setting up the Conference
1st conference- held on HOL MacDonald leader of the Labour Party
From the start the government and other British political parties showed commitment to the process- they worked with Indian representatives selected by the viceroy and Indian princes to hammer out proposals with which they all agreed
India would be run as a dominion that took the form of a federation including the princely states and Indians would be present in all areas of government
The absence of Congress with leader Gandhi and Nehru in prison along with thousands of other Congress members as a result of violence that followed the salt satyagraha presented a considerable problem
Gandhi-Irwin Pact 1931- Irwin didn’t want to be seen to be negotiating with a convicted terrorist and so an arrangement was made whereby Gandhi, Nehru and 19,000 imprisoned Congress members would be released from prison and confiscated property returned in return for a cessation of non-cooperation and terrorist activities and Gandhi would attend the 2nd conference
Quit India campaign 1942
compared to Direct Action 1946
At first the campaign was very powerful- masterminded by Congress- timing was crucial- was pitched to hit the Raj in August 1942 at a point when Britain was at its most vulnerable point in the Second World War
With Gandhi and Nehru’s immediate imprisonment, the satyagraha was leaderless and horrific rounds of riots and killings, attacks on Europeans and destruction of property seemed poised to make India ungovernable
Nevertheless, the Quit India movement was over in 3 months m: Indian regiments stayed loyal to the Raj and the impact of the movement was not widespread- not anticipated
Immediate impact- three months of riots and deaths could not be said to led to Indian independence
In many ways this campaign was similar to the Muslim Leagues Direct Action of July 1946- although closer in time to August 1947 and as frightening as the ‘Quit India’ campaign, it should be seen more as a protest against the failure of the Cabinet mission, just as Quit India was a protest against the failure of the Cripps Mission
The Second World War 1939-45
Dominating the period before independence, cannot be ignored as a contributory factor to the August 1947 independence- economic impact of the war, leaving Britain with debts of over £3 billion, infrastructure to rebuild and industry to wind down to peacetime levels, coupled with thousands of demobilised soldiers returning home and looking for work, any economic support for India was impossible
Coupled to this was the feeling in both India and Britain that Indian’s contribution to war effort involving the provision of two and a half million men for military operations needed rewarding which was independence
Round Table Conferences 1930-32 and Government of India Act of 1935 would probably eventually reached independence but it was the catalyst of the war that drove the decision to August 1947
General election in 1945- Labour gov PM Clement Attlee
Link closely with the war was the election, in Britain, of a Labour government in 1945
Clement Arlene and those who were now members of the new government were known to be sympathetic to Indian independence and in the 1930’s had strong links with Congress leaders
This coupled with the domestic economic situation put early independence for India high on the government’s agenda
What if a conservative government was elected? Churchill’s opposition to Indian independence was well known, but he would have been faced with the same economic situation as Attlee was facing
Likely that Churchill would’ve taken the same path given the pressure from the USA- but more slowly
The removal of Wavell as viceroy and the appointment of Mountbatten in his place in early 1947
This appointment together with Attlee’s announcement in the House of Commons that the transfer of power had to happen before the 30th June 1948, provided the trigger that resulted in independence in August 1947
Cabinet mission and 2nd Simla conference August Offer 1940 Direct Action-1946 Lahore Resolution 1940 Government of India Act 1935
Cabinet Mission- was seen as a peaceful solution by everyone including the Muslim League Congress and the Raj but the speech from Nehru derailed hope
2nd Simla Conference was held so they could run through Cabinet Missions proposal
1) There would be an all-Indian union responsible for defence, foreign policy etc
2) 3 clusters of provincial government (Congress Hindu- Bombay, Muslims League- Punjab and Bengal with a mix of religions)
who would have their own government responsible for day to day things and a all India union
Congress and League accepted but Nehru’s speech (were he said once Congress control all Indians union they could do whatever they liked and the Muslims groups would fall apart)
Muslims felt that they weren’t being treated fairly even though in the August Offer in 1940 it was stated that Muslims were going to be in the centre of any policy making and their views was just as valuable as anyone’s else’s
Led to Jinnah calling for a day of Direct Action 1946- rioting in Calcutta and across India- 3,000 people were injured to achieve a separate Pakistan which is what he wanted all along first announcing it in the Lahore Resolution 1940 Congress condemned and Gandhi tried to appeal to Jinnah - Muslims were 20% of the Indian pop.- minority- ‘Caste-Hindu’ domination was near if the Muslims didn’t fight back
GOIA 1935- British answer to issue of Indian self gov- number of province rose from 8 to 11- given all powers except defence and foreign policy which was retained for the Viceroy
Failed to satisfy many nationalists
Congress wanted purna swaraj and a strong central government not provincial government
Muslim League felt that they didn’t get any power from the system as Congress who won vote in 9 of the 11 provincial elections making them partner in government with British
Cripps Mission 1942
Under pressure from the US to grant independence to India so Churchill sends Cripps ( Labour, friend of Nehru and Gandhi and sympathetic to India) to lead a delegation to India
He offered full dominion status after the war India can elect an assembly to frame new constitution etc Gandhi and Congress rejected this as they were not willing for states to be able to opt out of India- didn’t work as Indians wanted full independence
At the end of the war, Muslims and Indians were split, Muslim League grew in power and the British showed they could still hold India with force
Round Table Conferences: 1930-32
2nd and 3rd
The British were pushed into a difficult situation
Lobbied by Gandhi to treat him as the sole representative of all Indians, and by Jinnah to support the concept of separate electorates against the express demands of Congress, the British were unable to reconcile the two factions and the conference ended in confusion
By the time of the 3rd conference, the political situation in Britain had undergone considerable change.
August 1931- first Labour gov. had been voted out and replaced with a Tory-dominated coalition,MacDonald lost the support of his own party and Labour, the main drivers for Indian constitution change from the British side, sent no representative to the conference
Facing a depression, unemployment and collapse of the economy, there was little enthusiasm for a third conference and it collapsed in confusion
How much responsibility can be placed at the door of Britain? Certainly, they could carry responsibility for the third conference, however given the intransigence of Jinnah and Gandhi at the second, it was not likely that the third was going to succeed anyways. It must not be forgotten that Britain worked tirelessly during the 1920’s and 30’s to set up and ensure the success of the conferences
Round Table Conferences
1930-32
The role of Gandhi
1) Gandhi- British gov. worked hard to enable Gandhi to attend second conference- considerable hope that progress would be made
Gandhi insisted that he not only represented Congress, but claimed that Congress alone represented political India- seems he intended to signify the unity of the Indian nationalist movement- in his claim he appeared to be unaware of what reactions of other delegates would be and particularly the reaction of the Untouchables and of the Jinnah and the Muslim League
Also, Back in India, Gandhi had supported punts swaraj so there was no way in which he would have accepted the dominion status that was proposed at the 1st Conference
Gandhi tried to persuade MacDonald to solve the separate electorates problem believing that the government were exaggerating the difficulty so they could retain their power over India once it collapsed- it was not surprising that the second conference couldn’t build on the progress made at the first
How much was Gandhi responsible? His position on separate electorates and dominion status was known before the conference, his refusal to compromise came as no surprise
Round Table Conferences:
1930-32
The role of Jinnah
One of the ten Muslim delegates to attend the 1st Round Table Conference and was part of the negotiations that agreed to press for a federated Indian with dominion status and Indian representation at every level of government
Interestingly no mention was made of the separate electorate issue- this came forth at the 2nd conference and drew Jinnah and Gandhi into direct confrontation- Jinnah worked tirelessly behind the scenes with various groups trying to gain concessions regarding the type and nature of separate electorates in an attempt to arrive at an agreed position
To what extent can Jinnah be blamed for the collapse of the Round Table Conferences?
His bargaining techniques at the second conference certainly drew criticism but this alone could not cause the conference to collapse- no problem at the 1st- at the 2nd Jinnah was trying to counter the stance of Gandhi
Partition and Independence of India 1947
Post-war years- Congress accepts partition
Mountbatten replaced Wavell as inter-communal violence escalated in early 1947
His personal approach- he had a good relationship with Nehru and less with Jinnah whom he disliked
Plan Balkan- First plan brought up by Mountbatten weaknesses and the fact that it was shown to Nehru and not Jinnah (favouritism) despite the fact that it was supposed to be confidential-
The role of the Boundary Commission- led by Sir Cyril Radcliffe who knew nothing about India and had 5 weeks to draw up a boundary
Terrified Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs in case they were on the wrong side of the boundary
Muslims heading left were killed by Hindus
Hindus and Sikhs moving west were killed by Muslims
1 million massacred
