Harrison Shaw India Revision 2023 Page |1
Unit 2.1 – The First World War and its impact, 1914-20
India and WW1
Loyal + willing outset of war
• Instant declarations loyalty + support Empire: P. Doyal: ‘we must be loyal to our salt’
• 1918: 827k Indians enlisted in Army → >700k in Mesopotamia (theory white supremacy shattered)
• Share responsibilities Empire, weaken British, hoped loyalty be rewarded (self-governance + more freedom)
Military contributions/effects
• 210k sepoys, 800k British Indian Army (overseas)
• Britain contesting equally powerful forces, likely weaken power → favourable conditions for nationalists
• Crucial source supplies for allied cause
• 1st expeditionary force: 16k British + 28.5k sepoys (Lahore + Meerut divisions) → Karachi 24th Aug 1914
➢ Dec 1915 → 2 infantry divisions moved Mesopotamia, suited environment + feared couldn’t survive another winter
• 1918: 1.5m recruited; 184k animals, 60k deaths
India’s economic contribution/economic effects
• $4bn loan from USA by Britain; interest 40% gov expenditure
• Benefitted Indian industry: India Tata Iron + Steel 1907: 7k employed→1923 30k employed → production 100x
➢ Dividends cloth-mills 6% 1914 → 30% 1917, an Ahmedabad mill owner x3 profits
• Alan Milward: ‘scaffolding multilateral settlements, held structure international trade prior 1914’ → imperialist exploitation
➢ War diverted Indian cotton exports, total collapse Industry Lancashire: ‘fractured Indian economic interdependency’
• Taxation 2x: pay for Mesopotamia campaign, food inflation 67%
• 12.5m/21.5m (world) died to Spanish influenza
• Contributed £146m revenues, 1917 raised £35.5m →1918: £38m
• Military expenditure rose 10% 1918-1919
• Created exchange rate problems, grain price up 93% + imported goods up 190%
Political issues of WW1 and the effect on British control
• Olusoga: ‘moral high ground white mans burden turned to blood soaked swamps of trench warfare’ → 85k deaths
Mesopotamia
➢ Proof Europeans no better; European barbarity aggravated incompetence in Mesopotamia
➢ Indians underequipped: ‘mess pot’
➢ 1918: Viceroy gains reports food riots, petty violence, support Raj crumbling (never coalesced to general campaign)
➢ March 1915, no British battalion India, uprising difficult contain
➢ Viceroy Hardinge, risks denuding troops: ‘position currently gamble’
• Religion issue when Turkey joined, British vs Muslim power
➢ 3x mutinies Muslim troops: increased self esteem Indians fighting alongside whites
➢ Strengthened arguments Indian politicians: Allies advocated ‘defend right nations’, importance democracy
➢ Broad national shifts political spectrum, Congress 1915 self-government talks, 1916 buried differences with ML at
Lucknow
Impact WW1 on British India
• ‘Great breaker taboos’ (Des) → shattered white supremacy
• ‘Breaking all rules of empire’ (Des) → no longer British exerting power over Indians
• ‘Most diverse melting pot ever’ (Olusoga) → carnage + barbaric
• ‘Crucible of fire’ (Olusoga) → greater nationalism, catalyst
• Impacted perception of Raj, white supremacy historic naivety, factor ‘chipped away’ at Raj, reason support self-governance +
emergence Gandhi
War and the growth of nationalism/opposition
The Ghadar Movement
• Komagata Maru refused entry Canada (300 Sikhs), set sail Calcutta arriving Sept 1914 (suspicions high)
➢ British Columbia growing movement anti-British Indians, Ghadar, ‘enemy British gov/mutiny’
➢ Some Sikhs made break into city from holding camp, 22 shot by British authorities (inflamed anti-British sentiment in
Punjab)
,Harrison Shaw India Revision 2023 Page |2
➢ Inside info broke uprising 5k Ghadrites (200 jailed, 46 hung): traditional loyalty Punjab no longer be relied upon →
anxiety lead to worst atrocity British rule in India
Home Rule Leagues
• 1916: led by ejected Congress radical Tilak (HRLFI), other by British, Annie Besant (AIHRL + President Congress 1917-18)
• Congress lost momentum since 1907 split (extremists vs moderates)
➢ Besant tried work with Congress but only supressed Home Rule movement
• Home rule not revolutionary, N.C. Kelkar (nationalist): ‘familiar to English ear + saved them from imaginary terrors swaraj likely
conjure in their minds’
➢ Besant: ‘freedom without separation’, ‘freedom birth right every nation
➢ Tilak: ‘home rule, be prepared defend your home’
• Success: Tilak HRLFI 32k members despite only Maharashtra + Karnataka, Besant’s networks all over subcontinent
• Both toured, generated agitation among public way Congress never tried
• Jinnah + J. Nehru joined leagues, Gandhi: ‘I will not help in agitation during war’
➢ Muslims + low caste Hindus believed self gov entrenched Brahmin/Hindu dominance
• Caused great concern British: calmed agitation reuniting Bengal partition 1911
➢ Swift arrest home rule campaigners highlighted British concern
• Tilak arrested for sedition, 40k rupees surety, Besant interned →counterproductive as swung Congress support to HRL’s
➢ First national campaign + unsatisfied willingness among population for more direct action: paved way for Gandhi
The Lucknow Pact December 1916
• Home rule agitation bridged Congress + ML → ended ‘10 years painful separation, misunderstandings + unpleasant
controversies’ (Congress President A.C. Mazumdar)
• Both declared self gov political objective (Bombay 1915)
➢ Pact 1916 covered broad statement political objective + precise details future electorates once self-governing
➢ Reintegration radical wing Congress
➢ Heart scheme: proportions seats provincial legislative councils reserved for Muslims
➢ 75% oppose = not passed, Legislative council to 150 members, 80% elected, 1/3 Muslim, fiscal control
Montagu Declaration 20th Aug 1917
• Montagu (Sec State India) passionate liberal taking fresh approach within conservative majority H of Commons: Transfer power
in India:
➢ ‘Increasing association Indians every branch administration’
➢ ‘Gradual development self-governing institutions’
➢ ‘Progressive realisation responsible gov in India’ → notion self-governance
➢ ‘Substantial steps ASAP’ → ambiguous tone (not surprising)
• Theme Appeasing vs Oppressive Acts
➢ British ‘papering over cracks’ (Brown) → appeasement
➢ DORA, DOIA + Rowlatt Acts + → oppressive
➢ Violence as oppressive: Amritsar massacre
• Montagu incites what wishes to do, false pretence happiness, only appease middle + upper class Indians, needed Indian
support WW1, empty promise, change gov voice aims to India
To what extent did WW1 change British rule in India? The changing British political landscape
• Shell crisis 1915: political crisis against support war effort, public turn against Asquith (liberal) → he brings in Torys + Labour
attempt quell uproar
➢ Dec 1916: replaced by D.L. George (Liberal), party splits into Asquithian liberals + Lloyd George liberals
➢ 14th Dec 1918: ‘Khaki election’ (soldiers return from war) → L. George PM but conservative majority (need George, able
reach out to working class, strong leader during war)
• Effects India: Conservatives against Home Rule + reforms (unlike prior Liberals)
➢ Oppressive policy: DORA 7th Aug 1914 (more gov power requisition buildings, govern + determine war effort supplies)
➢ Basis DOIA March 1915: Raj special powers deal revolutionary threats. Sense failure giving what promised, economic
hardship, British reactions
Situation in India end WW1
• Other parts Empire: Canada, Aus, New Z, SA all received home/rule/dominion status
• After Indian contribution WW1, many felt their turn + demands self gov grew
• USA + President Wilson keen countries across world given independence/democracy after WW1 → Britain under pressure
• Post-war recession India: large-scale unemployment, particularly textile industry
• Pandemic Spanish influenza killing 13-18m in India, followed monsoon (crops failed)
,Harrison Shaw India Revision 2023 Page |3
➢ India’s Investor Year Book: ‘greatest + most widespread period depression ever experienced’
• Bolsheviks taken over Russia Nov 1917: British gov terrified Communist takeover, riots India 1918 major cities → growing
discontent to British
Rowlatt Acts 1919
• British rule at this point contradictory: Oppressive vs Appeasement
• Early 1917: British gov appoint S.T. Rowlatt (Scottish judge) investigate ‘revolutionary conspiracies’
➢ July 1918 Rowlatt commission reported centres revolutionary activity: Bengal, Punjab + Bombay
➢ War time measures (DOIA) e.g., imprisonment without trial, censorship, house arrest key suspects conspiracy extension
➢ Montague found out ‘extremely repugnant’ but authorised act recognising need stamp-out rebellion
➢ All 22 Indian members Indian Legislative Council (implemented from Morley Minto reforms/Indian Councils Act 1909)
opposed act (only ‘advisory’ at this point) but outvoted + Rowlatt Act Law March 1919
Amritsar Massacre – 13th April 1919: ‘doomed British rule in India’ (Lynch)
• Amritsar capital Punjab + Holy city Sikhism → mutiny 1857 started with rebellion soldiers from Punjab
• 30th March, 2 nationalists organised protest, impressive display Hindu-Muslim cooperation → large scale arrests + protest
• Governor Punjab, O’Dwyer, convinced riots carefully planned uprising, luring Indian soldiers into mutiny → ordered Rex Dyer
(45th Brigade, Jalandhar) to sort situation
• 1,000 soldiers, 1/3 British + 2 armoured, cars equipped with machine guns
• 13th April: Baisakhi Day (most important religious festival of Punjab): thousands of pilgrims in Jallianwala Bagh → voice
opinions on Rowlatt Acts. 15k → 50k unarmed people: discussed repeal acts + sympathy those dead from riots
Repercussions of Massacre
• 1,650 rounds ammunition (10-15 mins), 400 dead + 1,500 wounded
• Dyer declared martial law (electricity off, water out, crawling order, salaam) → ‘indulging in frightfulness’/humiliation Indians
• Montagu increasingly angry way martial law being applied → Hunter Committee (Lord Hunter): enquire into massacre
➢ 11th Nov 1919 (6 months after) arrived Lahore: booed, journalists field day (martial law/censorship lifted), trained lawyers
‘tied witnesses in knots’
➢ Hunter Report: ‘saved situation in Punjab’, ‘acted beyond necessity’, ‘not as much humility as permitted’ (indictment way
India governed)
➢ Deep anger + savage resentment; E. Wilson: ‘violence key to the government edifice’
Further Repercussions of Massacre
• Dyer forced resign, arrived Southampton 3rd May 1920
➢ Press + public opinion both India + Britain took up entrenched positions → controversy spilled over to parliament
• Montagu: ‘if Britain chose to rule by sword alone, would be driven out by united opinion of civilised world’
➢ Result of Dyer debated both H of P: painfully evident attitude mind ruling classes towards India
➢ ‘Unashamed condoning brutality expressed in their speeches + echoed in newspapers ugly in its frightfulness’ (Tagore)
➢ ‘Calculated piece of inhumanity’ (Tagore) -> ‘Our true salvation lies in our own hands’ (Tagore)
• Turned millions loyal Indians against Raj, revealed true face rule + reform + heightened nationalist outrage
➢ Tilak: ‘abominable despotism of the bureaucracy’
The Government of India Act - 23rd Dec 1919: really dyarchy?
• Prior massacre, Sec State India Montagu + Viceroy Chelmsford elaborated Montagu Declaration 1917 + created series reforms,
attempted introduce self-governing institutions gradually for India
➢ Reforms outlined in Mont-Ford Report/Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1918)
➢ Formed basis GOIA (1919)
Montagu-Chelmsford Report Analysis
Positive aspects Negative aspects
1) ‘Measure of responsibility to representatives chosen 1) ‘Steps to be gradual’: acknowledging Montagu
by electorate’: widen voter representation Declaration 1917
2) ‘Complete popular control in local bodies’…’largest 2) ‘Limited by vital need securing imperial interests’,
possible independence’ ‘fundamental duty maintaining India’s defence’
3) ‘Transferring responsibility certain functions of gov’ 3) ‘Authority parliament essential matters remain
4) ‘Indian legislative council enlarged, more indisputable’
representative + opportunities for influencing gov
increased’
, Harrison Shaw India Revision 2023 Page |4
• Key theme/message: according to report, notion dyarchy + transferral power from British to Indians, for ex, in form provincial
legislative electorates explored + commented on + steps in which this will occur
• Dyarchy in theory 50:50 power share, reality 10:90 British
Overview GOIA 1919
Established Dyarchy: government with 2x ruling bodies: power provinces divided equally between British + Indians
Outlined 3 key features:
1) Promise self-government in future
2) Change compositions Councils + Electorate
3) Division government responsibility
Rule of the dyarchy
• Viceroy: 6 advisers, 3 appointed Indian, 1 British Army commander-in-chief in India; Viceroy enforce laws + advisers even if
legislative council rejected
• Provincial (ruled by Indians) enlarged: control education, agriculture, health, local self-gov + public works
• Britain: remain control military, foreign affairs, currency, communications + criminal law
• Franchise extended: linked to property tax/wealth (only 10% male Indians able vote provincial/legislative councils)
➢ Women: able vote some provincial council elections (only 1% cast votes)
• Each religion (Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus): reserved seats provincial legislatures
Reaction to the GOIA
• Montagu welcomed step closer self-government + showed followed up on promises made Montagu Declaration 1917
• Split in H of Cs: right wing MPs convinced gov losing nerve/losing India; left wing MPs felt Act didn’t go far enough
• Indian Civil servants worried influence reduced + Raj unable function without their support
• Link to Rowlatt Acts: many thought 2 years from declaration to law unacceptable when took matter of weeks implement
repressive Rowlatt Acts
➢ GOIA came 8 months after Amritsar when feeling towards British still poor
GOIA key details
• Mission statement: firm promise eventual self gov (no firm date)
• Decision making: Viceroy advised by executive council, enforce any law, authority declare state emergency + rule by direct
decree
• Law making + voting: national central legislature: 2 houses (lower) Legislative Assembly + (higher) Council of State
➢ Lower house 146 members (106 elected, 40 nominated), upper house 61 members, elected but franchise (only wealthy
Indians_
➢ Only 17,000 eligible for Council of State, 1m/10% adult male population for legislative council
➢ Each province full governor (own executive council) + own legislative council, 70% members elected, 5m men able vote
for candidates
➢ Principle separate candidates + electorates remained firmly part system; general electorates (everyone able vote) but
‘reserved elections’ only 1 group
➢ Special electorates: MPs unis, landholders + business; British unis had own MPs until 1950 + British business interest had
2nd vote
• Running the country: administration of Raj redesigned, 11 autonomous provinces but remained central gov, headed by Viceroy
➢ ‘Transferred powers’: land tax (financial responsibility lay with provincial ministers), excise/stamp duty, irrigation systems
maintenance, health, education + agriculture
➢ ‘Reserved powers’: Viceroy in control public order (police), finance (income tax collection, salt tax + customs’ duties),
postal service, railways, foreign policy + defence
❖ ‘Bureaucrats not prepared give up materially any fraction of power which they have enjoyed’ (Bombay politicians)
• Other issues: India office now funded by London
➢ 40% budget on military expenditure (Indian army only deployed elsewhere if emergency)
➢ No reference anywhere India becoming independent
➢ Patrick French: ‘in practice, dyarchy close to 9/10th to 1/10th rule, since true control remained British hands, ‘merely
window dressing supposed power’
➢ Gandhi argued reforms needed ‘considerable improvement with sympathetic handling rather than summary reflection’
➢ Believed reforms British abandonment right rule by force
Unit 2.2 – Changing Political Relationships, 1920-30
How did Indian nationalism + opposition develop?
• Nationalism: identification one’s own nation + support for its interests
➢ Often ‘political nationalism’ achieves ‘statehood’/’self-government’
