Why were the British asked to quit India?

beach

Many races from many foreign lands came to India ever since the 5000 or so years of it’s known history. It just happened that every such race could gel into the Indian fabric. With each of the major inward rush of such new cultures, India too changed forever. A part of her is mutated and fused with the foreign culture, creating a new society accommodating the newcomer within the society. Except the occasional hiccups sprinkled here and there in her history, there is no evidence to push the ‘invaders’ out of it’s society.

Once the dust of war or invasion is settled, people were able to accept this as a reality and not to create counter retaliation. This is an interesting fact of the psyche of the society. Even Alexander the Great was called in India as Alexander the Great, although he has done nothing great in India except killing its people and creating chaos all the way through his raids.

The case with the British was slightly different than the usual. India’s attitude with the British was hugely different than with others rules or people came to India.

Briton never believed that one day there would a serious challenge to the empire in India from within. The kind of buildings, cities built by the British during the rule in India show this. But they failed to note a historic point of Indian society.

If you see the character of all the ‘invaders’ to India there is a distinct feature the British had. That every race came to India became eventually Indian. In all cases a unique identity of a new culture is created by the fusion of the Indian culture and the respective foreign culture. The Indian society accepted this and a room in the society were created to accommodate the new class.

In case of the British, they remained as British. The British and Indians were like oil and water. They never mixed to make a new bread of society. The British treated Briton as home.

This hurt the very basic ego of the Indian society. Imagine this in a society not all the British in India were the rulers. There were any numbers British in the Indian society that could accept as part of them. And people (of India) were easily able to convince that ‘they’ are different.

Added to this Suez cannel was opened. Journey to India from Briton became less torturous. Shipload of noble ladies started arriving as prospective brides for the young men serving in the Raj. Had this been not happened many more people would have married locally, a basic license required to be accepted as the part of Indian society.

The British were asked to go not because they were bad. They did not accept India as home. And to a society felt proud of themselves, the British told that it is the British culture that is superior than Indian…..the last thing an Indian psyche can accept.


This is a political topic. No flame please. This is for an intellectual discussion and not for name-calling. The purpose is not to find out who was good and who was bad. Your thoughts and opinion are much welcome.

volga_volga

Interesting. What about Indians, were they willing to mix with the British? wasn't that you who recently said in the "suitable boy" that marrying a foreigner is a no-no for a conservative Indian family? (caste issues etc)

and since when Indians became so conservative?

__________________
Tibetan Orphanage School in China
My other favourite place is Pakistan Travel Forum

Rob_The_Pom

An interesting point, as far as integration was concerned, was the fact that initially many of the men from the East India Company took Indian wives and mistresses and took many of the facets of the local culture (see White Moghuls for a detailed story).
As time went by and, I think, the 'Enlightenment' occurred, the evangelical Christian movement gained a lot more influence and this practice was frowned upon. I believe William Wilberforce was extremely influential in this matter (we can perhaps forgive him this sad piece of ignoranceas he was responsible for the abolition of slavery in Britain).
It was as a direct result of the evangical movement that caused the Mutiny/Uprising/Rebellion, nothing really to do with the grease on the guns, but real fear of conversion. What is interesting is that far as I'm aware there was no forced conversion during the Raj, compare that to Mughal times.
By my Grandfather's time in India things were completely different, but I think the picture of his football team - see the MYGRANDAD gallery - is some evidence to suggest that not everyone saw themselves are entirely separate.

I believe there are many reasons why India reflects on the British times differently. The most obvious is that it is so recent and there are some people alive who can still remember it clearly.
The split of partition must also have an enormous affect on feelings that relate to the time. When we look back at Partition and the Independence Struggle, we note that some of the giants of the 20th century were involved in the whole process: Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, etc on the Indian side and Churchill, Mountbatten, Irwin(Lord Halifax), et al on the British side.
What I think is also a very important reason, and probably a sore point for many India politicians or nationalist historians, is the issue of collaboration. British India didn't run for the majority of its time because of guards on every corner and millions of British troops being resident in the country. It ran because there were millions of Indians involved.

But, there was one thing that came out of British India that is very positive and that is the effect on Britain itself. Great Britain is now a vibrant multi-cultural country and with a thriving South Asian community, who make an enormous contribution to the life and health of the country. We know GB isn't perfect, but I think we are more integrated and multi-cultural than most other countries on Earth. If there are any legacies of Empire that can be reflected on positively, it is surely that.

A fascinating subject glad someone raised it in a serious way, last time we tried to discuss this someone hijacked the discussion and turned it into a Pakistani properganda exercise (and that individual new nothing about the subject whatsoever). I hope nothing like that happens this time!

Cheers

RTP

__________________
There is no God but Dawkins and Hitchens is his prophet.

beach

Yes it is interesting. I do not know at what point in this social evolution this society allows a thumbs up for association among communities. Obviously at a point in the flux of population the ‘mix’ happens. And then we have this exclusive club attitude principally driven by the caste system.

For example the Muslims of the southwest cost (Malabar cost of Kerala). Their ancestors were Arab merchants who had trade deals with India. This happened even before Islam reached Arabia. They are the people who first brought Islam to India, centuries before the northwest of India had its present Muslim population. Many of these people married locally and settled centuries back. A new caste was created. The Muslim caste here is called ‘Mapila’, means son-in-law in the local language!

Also it has to do a lot with other customs in the society other than marriage too. For example if you take Christians and Hindus in Assam, they have more in common than say Hindus of Assam and Kerala. Similarly the Muslims & Hindus of Punjab are more culturally similar than the Muslims of Punjab and Tamilnadu. It all matters the adoptions of food, customs, costumes etc.

Yes it has nothing much to do with the grease in the gun cartridge. Hindus were told that the grease was made of cow fat. They had to bite and remove the grease paper to load the cartridge in the gun.. May be this incident might have just detonated an already flammable situation.

In understanding the Indian attitude I’m literally a kid. I’m really unable to comprehend the behavior of the elusive 'real' India. The elephant turns in the most unexpected ways. Nevertheless it’s always curious to walk behind it.

Rob_The_Pom

Another issue I didn't think of earlier which contributed to the British departure was one of finance. As far as I'm aware Britain had long stopped making any profit out of India and was, of course, virtually bankrupt due to the WWII. I think by the early 1940s there was basically no will left to remain as the colonial power in India. Britain wasn't wanted and no longer wanted to be there (except Churchill himself).
America was also pushing Britain to end its colonial influences, because this was seen as rather hypocritical when Britain had been one of the nations at the forefront of ridding the world of the two worst colonial powers in history (the other, of course, being communism). Interesting looking now at America, colonialism and hypocracy, but that's another story.
One fascinating area of interest involves who had the power at Partition. Was it Mountbatten? I think he was pretty much a bystander in the final shake-up with his strings being pulled by Nehru. Gandhi? Nehru? Jinnah? Patrick French, in the excellent Liberty or Death, places the majority of blame squarely on Jinnah's shoulders. But, I don't think any of the parties were particularly innocent in the end. They were all playing power politics and scrambling for influence. Gandhi was certainly far more of a shrewd and ruthless politician than Attenborough's hagiograph makes him out to be.
The saddest thing is the fact that a million or so people died because of this appalling comedy of errors.

sudheer poppa

There is this interesting thought that India would have been in lines with HK (actually detouring most of the infrastructure in HK) if the british had not left India. That is an interesting view to have.

And on topic - I think there are loads of reasons, petty ones, made up ones and material ones. Certainly the stricter cultural lines count as one of those. Then there is religious ones, autonomy ones, convienience ones and a whole lot of x,y,z ones. But it was WHAT the local leaders and ground level influencers, were able to rally people with, and that was the reason for the people who did joined the protests (actively or passively)

__________________
We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools - MLK

Pic Page 1
Pic Page 2
When my life changed over a week

jay_kiran

Yeah, before the mutiny Indian soldeirs refused to shake hands with British Officers because they ate beef. Many a Indian soldeir refused to touch his meal if the shadow of a white officer had passed on it !!.

Also, mutineers who were captured were made to eat beef and pork before being killed !!

Anybody know more about this ?!

Rob_The_Pom

I'm fairly sure it's true. There was lots of brutality all round during and after the Mutiny.
There was also a lot of heroism on all sides and a lot of good people lost their lives.

jay_kiran

The Sikhs sided with the British in the mutiny.

They used this opportunity to settle their scores with the descendents of the muslim mughal army.

They looted and killed every muslim in sight in present day Uttar Pradesh !!

Rob would you confirm this too ?

Digital Drifter

I think that's unfair. You and I have the luxury of hindsight to
analyse how things could/should have been which the respective leaders
of the drama did not have.

If you were in Mountbatten shoes, your first concern would have been
the safe withdrawal of the 100K+ Britishers in India wouldn't it? In
order of priority, wasn't it that which forced people's hands then,
the arbitrary date of Aug 15, 1947 with no thought of how long it
would have taken Indians to sort out their issues regarding their
'country'?

I would submit this thesis, that the day Mountbatten announced the
withdrawal was the time enough for an orderly Britsh withdrawal, *not*
the time required to consult, deliberate and thrash out the handover
with people of the Subcontinent. Turning on the victims and telling
them they botched up is really unfair.

It's like an airline advancing the date of the flight without telling
you about it. & then the airline blaming you for your
ill-preparedness. I would posit that this was no different from any
other colonial invasion in terms of bloodshed (as in Algiers, Vietnam,
Congo, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaya) , the only difference being there was
no bloodshed[1] in the political process but in the *aftermath*; the
senseless Partition which ripped and ruined generations. The blood
certainly does not lie on Jinnah[2] or any other politician of the
time.

In hindsight, it appears someone threw a scrap of paper on the
political table, turned on his heels without saying a word and walked
out, closed the door and in walking away, said softly

'Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of oppurtunism'[3]

That was cruel. Brutal.

I don't think my generation will ever comprehend the madness of the
partition migration but I do get the idea when I see Fallujah after
the firebombing recently.

Please note, that I'm not holding you responsible for any of the
above. My principal reference for this piece is Lapierre's 'Freedom
at Midnight'


Footnotes:
[1] Compared with other colonial adventures, the violent deaths were
small.

[2] Personally, I do not blame the man for wanting to believe in his
vision because I can accept the fact every man has his flaws.

[3] To badly paraphrase Shakespeare (Julius Ceasar)

Rob_The_Pom

I'm afraid I can't. When I returned to England from Japan I was unable to take my book collection with me. Sadly, I'm now missing nearly all of my lovely Indian history books. I checked in John Keay's India: A History, which is an excellent read, but doesn't go into quite enough depth.

Sorry about that.

beach

J_K
Yes. It's true.
The grudge among kingdoms and races were there. This despite the fact that there were peaceful co existence too. The very reason why different Western powers could establish their foothold in India was this competition among the kingdoms etc.

I'm just curios of this fact. At the end period of the Raj, it's Briton that was in a hurry to leave than India who wanted independence. Probably because of the pressure on the financial front created by the WW like Rob explained.

At this period, offer was to give independence with just Queen as the symbolic head. It was Gandhi who took the tough stand that it should be full independence and started the 'quit India' movement.

The exit was rather quick and not smooth. The partition (if at all was a must)could have been at least bloodless had it was not done in hurry. The only releaf is that no civil war started in the whole of the country.


The height of the Parliament house & the President's Palace are at the same height. One represented the people's representatives and the other the Queen's (the viceroys ) .There is a story behind this...(but i dont remember what)

......yes DD, this is not to hold anyone responsible

Rob_The_Pom

Of course I have the luxery of hindsight - isn't that what history is all about?
In French's Liberty or Death, which I can't recommend highly enough, he argues that be this point Mountbatten was really nothing more than a bystander. I'm not sure I would go that far though. Phillip Zeigler in his biog of Mtbn argues that Mtbn really was trying to do his level best to be fair. I also don't quite agree with this, Mtbn was going to be appointed Govenor General for India, but not Pakistan and was also great friends with Nehru (even though Nehru was having an affair with Edwina), but not Jinnah. How Mtbn chose the date of handover is lost to history, but we must consider that he was under enormous pressure from all parties for a speedy resolution. The Indian politicians wanted the British gone, not hanging around for a few more years. (Of course there was considerable pressure from the UK and America to leave as I mentioned previously)
The country was also on the brink of civil war, with sectarian hosilities continually boiling over. What is quite remarkable is that much of the administration of Partition was achieved so rapidly.
Mtbn took his role as Viceroy very seriously and I don't believe that his only priority was the withdrawl of British troops, Nehru had enough faith to want him to stay on as Governor General. In fact, I can't recall reading about any incidence of British subjects being attacked by Indians at all during those final days - the murder was reserved for Muslim - Sikh and Hindu conflict.
If there was any bias towards any cause by Mtbn it was towards India. This is illustrated in his alledged complicity (after some alledged encouragement from Nehru) in forcing Ratcliffe to redraw the boundary marker to favour India.
I certainly don't think that the Indian politicians were victims in any shape or form. The key players had plenty to gain in the power struggle.
Any interesting thought is what would have happened if Nehru and co had known about Jinnah's terminal illness? Certainly Jinnah was the catalyst for Pakistan and perhaps his death might have resulted in a united India.
One more interesting fact that generally goes ignored is that the Indian subcontinent is now more united and generally peaceful with three countries than it has ever been with the exception of British India.

One thing I'd mention about 'Freedom at Midnight' was the fact it was based on Mountbatten's memories. The authors interviewed the old man extensively. What we have to bear in mind about Mtbn was that he was a fairly arrogant chap and he is likely to have embellished his own role in history somewhat.

Rob_The_Pom

Oh and one more important point.
Who bears the responsibility for the deaths in Partition?
The people who did the killing. Nobody forced anyone to indulge in an orgy of rape, murder and pillage.

And I do hope nobody thinks I'm offering an apologia for the Raj, I'm most certainly not. I take what I suppose I describe as a 'realist' view.
History has already happened and we can't change it. I also believe that Colonialism is part of human nature and has happened continually through human history and will continue to happen for as long as we walk the planet. We have seen Colonialism through the post-British Empire and we see it still today. (Although I think we'd all like to see the back of it).

One more interesting post-empire thought is the fact that Britain maintains excellent relations with all of its former colonies, territories and domininons with the exception of Zimbabwe (and that is a fairly recent change and the fault of one despot). We can contrast this to the former territories of Spain and France where relations are not generally so good.

Anyway I have an MA paper to write on Globalization and Linguistic Imperialism in English Language Teaching(another remenent of Empire or a sign of American hedgemony?) - I'll be back a little later.

beach

RTP,
What we are seeing now is more of Coca Colonialisation than colonialisation