Chapter Info (Click Here)
Book No. – 52 (History)
Book Name – Modern World History (Norman Lowe)
What’s Inside the Chapter? (After Subscription)
1. WHY DID THE EUROPEAN POWERS GIVE UP THEIR EMPIRES?
2. INDIAN INDEPENDENCE AND PARTITION
2.1. Background to independence
2.2. Why was the partition of India necessary?
2.3. How was partition carried out?
3. THE WEST INDIES, MALAYA AND CYPRUS
3.1. The West Indies
3.2. Malaya
3.3. Cyprus
4. THE BRITISH LEAVE AFRICA
4.1. West Africa
4.2. East Africa
4.3. Central Africa
5. THE END OF THE FRENCH EMPIRE
5.1. Indo-China
5.2. Tunisia and Morocco
5.3. Algeria
5.4. The rest of the French Empire
6. THE NETHERLANDS, BELGIUM, SPAIN, PORTUGAL AND ITALY
6.1. The Netherlands
6.2. Belgium
6.3. Spain
6.4. Portugal
6.5. Italy
7. VERDICT ON DECOLONIZATION
Note: The first chapter of every book is free.
Access this chapter with any subscription below:
- Half Yearly Plan (All Subject)
- Annual Plan (All Subject)
- History (Single Subject)
- CUET PG + History
LANGUAGE
The End of the European Empires
Chapter – 26
Table of Contents
WHY DID THE EUROPEAN POWERS GIVE UP THEIR EMPIRES?
- In the 1990s, decolonization documents became more accessible, allowing historians to investigate European powers’ motives in relinquishing colonies and the methods of withdrawal.
- Debate revolves around whether local nationalist movements or outside political and economic forces were the main driving forces behind decolonization.
- Robert Holland advocates the ‘metropolitan thesis’, arguing that European powers abandoned colonies due to imperial roles being incongruent with modern foreign and economic policies.
- Other historians emphasize the role of nationalist movements, claiming that imperial powers were often expelled by force, especially in East and Central Africa.
- Nationalist movements existed in many colonies before WWII, driven by the desire for self-rule and resentment of exploitation by European powers.
- India‘s Indian National Congress Party campaigned against British rule since 1885, and Vietnamese nationalistsopposed French rule from the 1920s.
- Nationalism grew significantly after WWII, pushing colonial powers to grant independence sooner than intended, but often resulting in poorly prepared new states.
- WWII gave a major boost to nationalist movements in several ways:
- Japanese victories proved that non-Europeans could defeat European powers, which inspired nationalist movements.
- Japanese occupation of British, French, and Dutch territories led to guerrilla tactics being adopted by nationalists in Indo-China, Dutch East Indies, Malaya, and Burma.
- Africans serving in the British military saw the stark contrast between their conditions and those of Europeans, fueling demands for independence.
- Asian nationalists, such as Sukarno in the Dutch East Indies, worked with the Japanese, hoping for more independence post-war.
- The 1941 Atlantic Charter promised that all peoples had the right to self-determination, raising hopes of independence, though Churchill later limited this to Nazi-occupied nations.
- WWII weakened European powers, making it difficult for them to maintain their empires.
- Britain’s empire was already under strain, as it relied on settlers and local rulers to manage territories, reducing direct British control.
- Britain granted India independence in 1947, followed by other colonies, but aimed to make the withdrawal appear controlled and voluntary.
- French, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese empires resisted decolonization, engaging in costly military campaigns but ultimately losing their colonies.
- Pan-Africanism emerged early in the 20th century, emphasizing shared cultural heritage among people of African descent.
- Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. Du Bois were key figures in spreading Pan-Africanism, which inspired African nationalists seeking independence and later advocating for a United States of Africa.
- Kwame Nkrumah promoted Pan-Africanism, but many African leaders opposed it, preferring to maintain national sovereignty rather than enter a large federation.
- In 1963, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) was established, which offered a looser form of unity, abandoning the idea of a United States of Africa.
- Outside pressures to end imperialism played a significant role in decolonization.
- The USA, hostile to imperialism, pressured Britain to grant independence to India and other colonies, believing that delaying decolonization could fuel communism in Asia.
- The United Nations, influenced by the USA, advocated for decolonization, condemning imperialism and urging a step-by-step program.
- The USSR also denounced imperialism, encouraging nationalists to intensify their campaigns for independence.
- American influence helped undermine European empires, viewing newly-independent nations as potential markets for economic and political influence.
- Every colony’s path to independence was different, influenced by a mix of internal and external factors.
INDIAN INDEPENDENCE AND PARTITION
Background to independence
- British concessions to Indian nationalists began before WWII with reforms such as the Morley–Minto reforms (1909), Montague–Chelmsford reforms (1919), and the Government of India Act (1935), all providing Indians with more influence in their governance.
- India was promised ‘dominion status’ after the war, meaning increased independence while acknowledging the British monarch as head of state, similar to Australia.
- The Labour government elected in 1945 wanted to grant independence to India on moral and economic grounds, disapproving of the exploitation of Indians.
- Ernest Bevin, the foreign secretary, had considered delaying independence to finance a development program for India but abandoned the idea due to concerns of Indian suspicion and Britain’s own economic difficulties.
- Clement Attlee, the prime minister, and Bevin decided to grant India full independence, leaving the Indians to work out the details.
- The reasons for British withdrawal from India have been debated:
- Official sources claim it was the culmination of a long process starting with the Government of India Act of 1919, presenting the British as preparing India for independence.
- Indian historians like Sumit Sarkar and Anita Inder Singh challenge this view, arguing that the Government of India Acts were aimed at postponing independence, and that India’s independence was the result of struggle and sacrifice.
- Some historians argue that India was no longer profitable for Britain, becoming a drain on resources, so the British aimed to exit without looking humiliated while keeping India within the British financial network and Commonwealth.
- A middle view is presented by Howard Brasted, defending the Labour government against accusations of indecision. He shows that the Labour Party had a clear policy for withdrawal from India, discussed in 1938 by Clement Attlee and Jawaharlal Nehru.
- Both Nehru and Gandhi recognized that with the Labour victory in 1945, Indian independence was imminent.
- However, the path to independence was complex and ended with the division of the country into India and Pakistan.
Why was the partition of India necessary?
- Religious hostility between Hindus and Muslims was the main issue, with Hindus making up about two-thirds of the 400 million population and Muslims the rest.
- After their victory in the 1937 elections, the Hindu National Congress Party called for the Muslim League to merge with Congress, alarming the Muslim League, who feared Hindu domination in an independent India.
- M. A. Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League, demanded a separate Muslim state of Pakistan, adopting the slogan ‘Pakistan or Perish’.
- Compromise attempts failed: the British proposed a federal scheme giving limited powers to the central government and more to provincial governments, allowing Muslim-majority provinces to control their own affairs without a separate state. Both sides accepted the idea in principle but failed to agree on details.
- Violence broke out in August 1946 after Lord Wavell, the viceroy, invited Jawaharlal Nehru to form an interim government. Nehru included two Muslims in his cabinet, but Jinnah believed the Hindus would not treat Muslims fairly, calling for a day of ‘direct action’ for a separate Pakistan.
- Rioting began in Calcutta, killing 5000 people and spreading to Bengal, where Muslims slaughtered Hindus. Hindus retaliated, bringing India to the brink of civil war.
- Mountbatten decided on partition after the British government realized they lacked the military strength to control the situation.
- The British announced in early 1947 that they would leave India by June 1948, hoping to shock the Indians into adopting a more responsible attitude.
- Lord Louis Mountbatten was appointed as the new viceroy and concluded that partition was the only solution to avoid civil war. While bloodshed seemed inevitable, he believed partition would cause less violence than insisting Muslims remain part of India.
- Within six weeks, Mountbatten worked out a plan for partition and British withdrawal, which was accepted by both Nehru and Jinnah, although M. K. Gandhi (the Mahatma) still hoped for a united India.
- Fearing that delay would cause more violence, Mountbatten brought the date for British withdrawal forward to August 1947.
How was partition carried out?
- The Indian Independence Act was rushed through the British parliament in August 1947, separating the Muslim-majority areas in the north-west and north-east to form the independent state of Pakistan.
- Pakistan consisted of two separate areas over a thousand miles apart.
- Independence Day for both India and Pakistan was on 15 August 1947.
- The provinces of Punjab and Bengal were split, creating problems as millions of people found themselves on the wrong side of the new borders – Muslims in India and Hindus in Pakistan.
- Fearing attack, millions tried to cross the borders, with Muslims heading to Pakistan and Hindus to India.
- Clashes and mob violence followed, particularly in Punjab, resulting in about 250,000 deaths.
- Violence was less severe in Bengal, where Gandhi, still advocating non-violence and tolerance, helped calm the situation.
- Violence began to subside by end of 1947, but in January 1948, Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic who opposed his tolerance towards Muslims.
- Gandhi’s death shocked the nation, but it seemed to help the people come to their senses, allowing the new governments of India and Pakistan to focus on other issues.
- From the British point of view, the granting of independence was seen as an act of far-sighted statesmanship.
- Attlee argued that Britain could not be blamed for the violence, claiming it resulted from Indian failure to agreeamong themselves.
- V. P. Menon believed Britain’s decision to leave India earned universal respect and goodwill.
- Howard Brasted agreed, suggesting a less sensitive British approach could have led to an even worse bloodbath.
- A. N. Wilson criticized Mountbatten, arguing he should have provided peacekeeping forces and been more careful with the frontiers.
- Wilson claimed Mountbatten’s haste, arrogance, and inattention to detail contributed to the deaths, comparing him to those hanged after the Nuremberg trials.
- In the longer term, Pakistan did not function well as a divided state, and in 1971, East Pakistan broke away to become Bangladesh.