Is the Rowlatt Act avoidable?

If for whatever reason the British Government in 1918 is more liberal about India due to a change in government, can the Rowlatt act not be passed?

And How Would No Rowlatt act effect the Raj?
 
If for whatever reason the British Government in 1918 is more liberal about India due to a change in government, can the Rowlatt act not be passed?
The obvious solution that I can think of is that someone comes to the, correct, conclusion that passing the act would be counterproductive by simply angering people and creating more problems than it solves.


And how would no Rowlatt Act effect the Raj?
With no Act the Punjab could possibly not be as enflamed, knock-on being possibly able to avoid the Amritsar massacre. It was apparently the rioting in the Punjab that discouraged Gandhi from his non-violence campaign so if it continued that could have some interesting effects. I don't really know enough about India of the period to say with certainty, you're probably better off waiting for some of our more knowledgeable board members to notice this thread and post. :)
 
I suspect that by the time of Rowlett, the breaking point had already been passed.

Without Rowlett, it would come differently, but Indian independence would still be coming shortly after WW2.

And from what I've read, Rowlett-influenced violence did convince Gandhi to suspend his own non-violence campaign, which hebworried might further inflame the situation.
No Rowlett=less anger=continuing non-violence campaign. Which quite possibly would've resulted in the same outcome in much the same timeframe.

Some folks like to think that only specific incidents led to the Indians demanding independence. Therefore, in theory, if the British merely avoided those incidents, the Indian people would've responded with a (presumably) continuing doglike devotion to Sahib. In point of fact, the mere existence of a foreign-imposed Empire was eventually going to prompt an effective independence movement. Nobody likes being occupied and exploited.
 
I suspect that by the time of Rowlett, the breaking point had already been passed.

Without Rowlett, it would come differently, but Indian independence would still be coming shortly after WW2.

And from what I've read, Rowlett-influenced violence did convince Gandhi to suspend his own non-violence campaign, which hebworried might further inflame the situation.
No Rowlett=less anger=continuing non-violence campaign. Which quite possibly would've resulted in the same outcome in much the same timeframe.

Some folks like to think that only specific incidents led to the Indians demanding independence. Therefore, in theory, if the British merely avoided those incidents, the Indian people would've responded with a (presumably) continuing doglike devotion to Sahib. In point of fact, the mere existence of a foreign-imposed Empire was eventually going to prompt an effective independence movement. Nobody likes being occupied and exploited.

Oh I didn't mean to say that india was going to be permanently part of the empire. :eek:

I meant that made the Dominion making process could be speed up or something...
 
Oh I didn't mean to say that india was going to be permanently part of the empire. :eek:

I meant that made the Dominion making process could be speed up or something...

It might have made Dominion status less unacceptable, certainly. My personal belief is that things had already progressed beyond the point where India would accept Dominion status for long. But I'm nowhere near informed enough to be confident of that opinion.

Hopefully some better-informed folks will weigh in...
 
It might have made Dominion status less unacceptable, certainly. My personal belief is that things had already progressed beyond the point where India would accept Dominion status for long. But I'm nowhere near informed enough to be confident of that opinion.

Hopefully some better-informed folks will weigh in...

Oh I figure India would leave as soon as possible, but hopefully with no partition... I have plans... :p
 
Top