The British Indian Empire was declared as a belligerent against the Axis powers by the United Kingdom without consulting prominent Indian leaders. Several leaders of the Indian independence movement, including Mahatma Gandhi, expressed strong opposition against Nazism and Fascism but termed Britain's "war to save democracy" as hypocrisy since it was denying democratic rights and individual liberties to Indians. The British, under Churchill, were critical of the Indians, with Churchill at moments describing them as “vile creatures”. Churchill did not want to offer them anything. In 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps on his first mission to India made on behalf of the British Government his offer of independence after the war in exchange for cooperation, but the Indian political parties rejected his proposals.
By 1940, there were many factors contributing towards the fact that India had not yet acquired themselves independence. It can be said that the main reason that there was no independence was in fact due to the divisions, whether it be political or religious, within India. This view is supported fully by source 15 and somewhat source 17. The question is asking whether or not the British were the reason that India weren’t getting independence as they wanted to keep hold of the nation at this point, or if the reason India was still being ruled by Britain was because of their own issues within the nation. Source 15 fully agrees with the fact that it was India’s fault that they were not achieving ‘purna swaraj.’ It states that Britain ‘ could not contemplate transfer of their present responsibilities to any system of government whose authority is directly denied by large and powerful elements in India’s national life.
He saw that India had been part of the British Empire since the 18th century; it was the 'Jewel in the crown of the British Empire.' He also pointed out that India was vital for British trade, and if it were to lose its place in the Empire, Britain was likely to lose its valuable trade link with India, further weakening British industry. Churchill believed this so strongly, that in 1930 he joined the Indian Empire Society; a group set up by Conservative rebels who were against Indian self-government, and in 1935, he resigned from the Conservatives, after the passing of the Government of India Act 1935. These acts show how committed to his beliefs, Churchill was. Since Churchill had temporarily resigned from politics, he spent more time at his home,
Winston Churchill through the years had many differences in opinion with the conservative party besides that of the disagreement over relations with Germany, There were two other issues that started the damaged to his reputation , that perhaps led to him being held at arms length by the conservatives later on in his career. On two subjects did Churchill openly and loudly oppose his party, his confrontational personality would not allow him to do it any other way, but it injured him with his party. The first of these was the Churchill’s opposition to Baldwin granting dominion status to India. This was a movement in India fighting against British rule. under the leadership of Ghandi, non-violent approaches led to the issue was taken up in the house of commons in a favourable light, the vast amount of conservatives and the public agreed that there should be an elected Indian government and Ghandi was much admired in Britain as well as in India.
The United States put pressure on the British to avoid creating a communist country. Hesitantly, the British suspended the country’s independence for the time being. The British Guiana became a Cold War battlefield, one in which the United States saw itself responsible to prevent communist takeover. Jagan was seen as very dangerous, especially when he publicly declared himself a Marxist-Leninist in 1961. Therefore, during the 1961 British Guiana elections, Kennedy was determined to deny Jagan power.
Between 1900 and 1919 there were many reforms made by the British which concerned the ruling of Indian within the empire. During this time there was difficulty concerning the nationalist movement in India. The reforms were made for individual reasons however the reforms may have been for various main reasons. There are arguments that Britain were only making reforms to ensure control over India, this is shown in source 13, this is where the British only decided to reform to help themselves and not India as a whole. But the reforms can also be seen as reducing British rule over the subcontinent as in sources 14 and 15 where they are either to grant India nationhood or to reduce tensions between the nationalist movement and the British Raj.
In a political sense, it ‘got his foot in the door’, so to speak. It came about largely due to problems with Weimar democracy and weak decisions; there were serious miscalculations in the appointment of Hitler. Many of the elite, particularly Papen, became intrigued and willing to co-operate with Hitler (even settle for a Hitler government), as they wanted his huge support base to further their own power ambitions and counter the rise of communism. He had the support required to solve Germany’s parliamentary crisis, and crucially he had the reluctant backing of Hindenburg, a nationalistic president who also feared a Bolshevik revolution and believed the Nazis could protect Germany from this. Despite the efforts of many to encourage Hitler’s appointment, there was no intention of forming a permanent leadership with him; the elite groups around Hindenburg planned to use Hitler to gain his support base, then abandon him when he was no longer needed.
The reliability of source 15 can be questioned, although the primary source is a statement by Lintlithglow. One could argue that Linlithglow was perhaps always going to exaggerate the divisions within India to make the British seem right in keeping control of the divided country, but then on the other hand would Linlinthglow need to exaggerate the divisions within India? This source states that, “His Majesty’s Government could not contemplate transfer of their present responsibilities for the peace and welfare of India to any system of Government”. This suggests that the British couldn’t even imagine giving any real power to India. This means the British are withholding peace within India.
He believed the only way Russia could gain from the war was if it lasted for a long time and France, Britain and Germany exhausted themselves. Thirdly, he was unhappy with Britain not only for the policy of Appeasement but also for their slowness to negotiate. For these reasons he did not trust Britain. The Pact stated that Germany and Russia would not fight each other, rather they would work together and split what they gained between them.
(Cranny p.55) Normally, when Britain went to war, Canada would automatically be at war as well, but King took a big step in not following orders from the mother country. Another accomplishment King succeeded in was demanding to be able to sign an international treaty without a British representative’s permission. (Cranny p.55) Once again, King did not follow the rules. He was supposed to receive a British representative’s signature for treaties, but he continued to push for greater Canadian independence. Secondly, The Balfour Report allowed Canada to receive autonomy and gave Canada equal status with Britain for creating laws.