Did the British intend to sabotoge India?

Did the British intend to sabotage India?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 9.6%
  • No

    Votes: 81 77.9%
  • Mixed Bag

    Votes: 13 12.5%

  • Total voters
    104
Status
Not open for further replies.
The British might have a lot to answer for in respect of their governance of India, but they did leave India/Pakistan/Ceylon more or less in working order when they finally departed. And invested quite a bit in its governance and communications during their time in charge.

I don't understand your point. Britain didn't screw India as much as Belgium screwed the Congo, true, but that's not a high bar to beat.

Furthermore, I don't even know if India or Pakistan were in working order when the British left. After all, there was a mass riot that left one million dead and a feudal system that hadn't advanced a whole lot from the seventeenth century was in place in both countries. I find that an ignored part of Indian history was Nehru's reforms, where he destroyed the feudal system as well as laid the groundwork for India's democracy. Without these reforms, I strongly suspect India would be as unstable and as prone to dictatorship as other former British colonies, as well as retaining a massively horrendous feudal system.

Not entirely out of the goodness of their hearts I agree but they did build a lot of railways

Not the "Britain helped India cuz railways" meme again.
 

hipper

Banned
I read some where that during the war, Churchill guaranteed the British would not ration bread. When push came to shove in 1943, 3 million indie had to starve to death in order to keep this promise. I wonder how much soul search the cabinet made before they came to that decision.
.

This is a very bizarre interpretation of the decision in 1942 to withdraw ocean going merchant shipping into. The Indian Ocean. Earlier in the war ships arriving on the Indian Ocean would undertake a funeral voyage between two Indian ocean ports before returning to the Uk via America. The cross trades" along with the loss of Grain supplies from Burma and Hoarding within India have his Caused a Famine in Bengall during 1943.

Blaming Churchill for this is a favourite of Churchill usually gets the blame for this but a number of other parties spring as more culpable.

The Famine was eventually relieved by the application of strict controls on grain stocks in India.
 
People seem to be leaving out what they think the British could have done. Force Pakistan not to exist? Partition was driven internally not by Britain who pushed for a united India. The Hindu and Muslim peoples of the borders (skipping over assorted unpleasant more minor local incidents and history) managed to co-exist under former and British rule. Independence is a bugger when it means you have to take responsibility for your own actions. Divide and conquer is a cliche (though not one without it being a useful tool employed by all empires and dictators) when it is used to refer to giving respect to all communities. In the Indian Army simple feeding is a nightmare unless you group your Hindus, Muslims, Bhuddists etc to provide the appropriate diet, ditto for castes. Just to give you some idea of the paucity of numbers of British in India the Indian/Pakistani community in the UK today is several times the proportion of British in colonial India. The control of the forces of law and order was passed to the new independent governments. The numbers of British troops were barely enough to protect themselves or are folk suggesting that mass conscription in Britain should be further enlarged to more than WW2 levels, armed and sent to India to oversee partition. I can see that being welcomed by Congress, and the Muslim League etc................

The truth is that Britain at no time ever was in a position to impose it's rule by simple force except locally with extensive local support. Like all empires (and very efficiently) it employed the people it colonised to rule themselves for it. The whole set up was handed over in complete and running order to the new owners.

Before India became united under British rule (or via client states, thank you Rome for that lesson) it was deeply partitioned into scores of states in constant flux whose rulers espoused their religion irrespective of that of the ruled and all the powerful ones were ready to form their own empires if the chance came and, like England, was composed of successive waves of hostile immigrant foreigners.

Empires are a bad thing and this includes the Chinese, Russian and American ones which they prefer to call their nation. Partition was a bad thing for all. The violence was unspeakable and internally generated exactly as predicted in the arguments for a United India. Britain was in no position to change anything.
 
So, your solution to the Jammu and Kashmir crisis is for all of Jammu and Kashmir, including the Hindu-majority and Buddhist-majority parts, to be annexed by Pakistan? That's a fucking horrible plan. This is the worst post I've ever seen on AH.COM.

Probably the least-worst solution would be to allow Jammu and Kashmir to partition itself like what happened with Punjab and Bengal. It would have to be effected differently given that Punjab and Bengal were provinces and not princely states, but perhaps a referendum on partition by district?
 
In the Indian Army simple feeding is a nightmare unless you group your Hindus, Muslims, Bhuddists etc to provide the appropriate diet, ditto for castes.

A total exaggeration. I really don't understand how this orientalist myth that feeding Indians is a nightmare. Is it really that hard not to feed Hindus beef, to make sure strict Hindus get vegetarian food, and not to give Muslims pork?

I can see that being welcomed by Congress, and the Muslim League etc................

Better than one million people dying.

The truth is that Britain at no time ever was in a position to impose it's rule by simple force except locally with extensive local support.

The only support Britain had was from useful idiots. Britain was certainly at many times in positions "to impose its rule by simple force". In fact, during the Indian Mutiny, British troops did just that, refusing to listen to the Mughal Emperor and instead invading his palace and turning it into ruin, no doubt resulting in the loss of many treasures. And then they executed the Mughal Emperor's sons, just to show the "brown niggers" what happens to those who defy the British.

(or via client states, thank you Rome for that lesson)

Client states? The princely states were just powerless puppets, forced to tow the line of the British, and if they didn't, there was the implicit threat that they would be forcibly dethroned, just as what happened to the Mughal emperors.
 
As long as the British came out Indian Independence smelling of roses, and the Indians looked like savages, HMG would be pleased.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Legacy

The resulting sectarian strife and mass murder were an acceptable price to pay. London could say to the rest of the world 'this is what decolonisation looks like. Happy now?'
I'm sorry? Maybe I'm missing something but the Wikipedia page you link to doesn't appear to back up your claims that the British government intentionally instigated 'sectarian strife and mass murder'.
 
Nehru's reforms, where he destroyed the feudal system as well as laid the groundwork for India's democracy. Without these reforms, I strongly suspect India would be as unstable and as prone to dictatorship as other former British colonies, as well as retaining a massively horrendous feudal system.
Client states? The princely states were just powerless puppets, forced to tow the line of the British, and if they didn't, there was the implicit threat that they would be forcibly dethroned, just as what happened to the Mughal emperors.

Firstly, Nehru didn't destroy the feudal system -it is still alive and well in much of rural India (and Pakistan) and the landlord class are still more powerful than a lot of people might think. What he did was get rid of the princely states by deposing the Maharajahs. There is a big difference. You are equating getting rid of the King with getting rid of all the Dukes, Earls, Barons, Knights etc. and removing the restrictions on the serfs. The former is not getting rid of the feudal system, it is just getting rid of any figureheads that might form a locus of opposition to your rule. The latter is indeed getting rid of the feudal system but Nehru's reforms never were that far reaching. Secondly, you give Nehru too much credit for introducing democracy, the British had been introducing representative local and regional government in the directly ruled parts of India for about sixty years prior to their departure. Ever hear of Morley/Minto or Montagu/Chelmsford?
Secondly, yes the ruler of a client state would most probably be dethroned if he deliberately set himself to consistently act contrary to British interests and objectives, but that is far from being a powerless puppet, the British were in the business of indirect rule by clients not covert rule by puppets. Therefore the Indian princes had very considerable leeway. If only because the British needed them to command a modicum of respect and allegiance from their subjects for them to be any use and therefore realised that they would sometimes act more slowly or in different ways from what the British ideally wanted. And the British had little direct interest in their cultural or religious affairs. And were actually encouraging of modernisation. One or two princely states like Bikaner with progressive rulers actually ran fairly model governments and created air forces. As long as they weren't plotting to drive the British out or impede trade throughout the Raj the British Advisers were not heavy handed. Contrast them with Poland under Boleslaw Bierut or Czechoslovakia under Gustav Husak, or Norway under Quisling if you want to see what a real puppet state looked like. The Indian princes had a degree of discretion, a puppet has a set of instructions.
And, leaving aside the hysterical lynch mob atmosphere that prevailed just after the Mutiny, if you look at those instances of Indian princes that were dethroned, the reasons varied from extensive murders of family members to clinical insanity to serial paedophilia - all matters that would have gotten a US President impeached. Given that there were six hundred odd princely states and that Britain directly ruled its Indian Empire from 1860-1947 and that not more than forty were removed from power during that period (its hard to tell, one or two might genuinely have abdicated) and only about five of that forty for direct political reasons (obviously the Nawab being batshit crazy provides an indirect political reason in that it promotes political instability in his state but I mean by that overt support of an end to British rule)
 
I cannot speak for India, not being enough of an expert on the culture but studies of pre-partition Ireland have shown the problems of being either a local majority but national minority (Ulster Protestants) or a local minority but national majority (Ulster Catholics). In such situations at the flashpoint (Ulster and presumably Kashmir) both sides then show the fear and latent paranoia of being a minority that can be subsumed/persecuted/discriminated against and this sense of insecurity is then overcompensated for in a very fervent chauvinistic unionism or nationalism in their identification with their "majority" status.

But that's the thing. As @Indicus notes, the plan of @michael1 requires one million Hindus to flee Jammu, a place where Hindus make up a majority, in the name of "peace". And then, what if some Hindus refuse to leave? After all, in their eyes, they make up a majority in their land, and so they see no reason why they should leave. What will happen then? There is no doubt that a Pakistani dictator would use it as an excuse to ethnically cleanse that one million people, and honestly, I prefer the OTL Jammu and Kashmir crisis to one million people being booted off their land.

Probably the least-worst solution would be to allow Jammu and Kashmir to partition itself like what happened with Punjab and Bengal. It would have to be effected differently given that Punjab and Bengal were provinces and not princely states, but perhaps a referendum on partition by district?

Finally, a reasonable idea.
 

I dunno, singling out Churchill ignores that incredibly horrific famines were just a part of living under British India since 1770, when a third of Bengal's population starved to death.
 
I dunno, singling out Churchill ignores that incredibly horrific famines were just a part of living under British India since 1770, when a third of Bengal's population starved to death.

Indian famines had generally come to an end by about 1920 as commercial agriculture and railways became more widespread, and this is part of what makes the 1943 famine stand out. There is no doubt that British policy (for which Churchill was ultimately responsible) played some part in the famine of 1943. The loss of Burma and the defensive precautions against Japan lead to a shortage of food in Bengal (how much of a shortage is debatable). One obvious way to address this would have been to divert shipping from other purposes to ship food into Bengal. The British were unwilling to do so as they were very short of shipping, it was the major limiting factor on all operations during 1942 and early 1943 at least. How much responsibility Churchill bears for this can be legitimately debated by people more informed than I am, but I don't think it's outrageous to say he bears a large share of the blame (although I'm not saying this is what I think).
 
But that's the thing. As @Indicus notes, the plan of @michael1 requires one million Hindus to flee Jammu, a place where Hindus make up a majority, in the name of "peace"....

Finally, a reasonable idea.
To repeat myself, I wasn't intending to present an optimal solution, just to very quickly show the sort of thing that might have been needed to improve Indo-Pakistani relations and why it was practically impossible. My reference to Jammu was because I was talking about the need to invade a sovereign state (Jammu and Kashmir) not because I wanted to talk about the regions within that state. I'll go back and edit it now to try and make my purpose clearer
 
Indian famines had generally come to an end by about 1920 as commercial agriculture and railways became more widespread, and this is part of what makes the 1943 famine stand out. There is no doubt that British policy (for which Churchill was ultimately responsible) played some part in the famine of 1943. The loss of Burma and the defensive precautions against Japan lead to a shortage of food in Bengal (how much of a shortage is debatable). One obvious way to address this would have been to divert shipping from other purposes to ship food into Bengal. The British were unwilling to do so as they were very short of shipping, it was the major limiting factor on all operations during 1942 and early 1943 at least. How much responsibility Churchill bears for this can be legitimately debated by people more informed than I am, but I don't think it's outrageous to say he bears a large share of the blame (although I'm not saying this is what I think).

I think it is easy to forget the role of the war in all this. Shipping losses were heavy, the grain may have been available, but the means of transporting and escorting it were not. 1942 was something of high water mark for the Axis powers, later in the war I thing the famine would have manageable. Churchill may have prioritised the war effort, but that reflected a high degree of desperation on his part.

The greatest blame should surely lie with Japan and Germany who created a situation in which hunger was an issue in many countries.
 

Deleted member 94680

The only support Britain had was from useful idiots. Britain was certainly at many times in positions "to impose its rule by simple force". In fact, during the Indian Mutiny, British troops did just that, refusing to listen to the Mughal Emperor and instead invading his palace and turning it into ruin, no doubt resulting in the loss of many treasures. And then they executed the Mughal Emperor's sons, just to show the "brown niggers" what happens to those who defy the British.

The Indian Mutiny (not sure if that is the correct name anymore) was hardly suppressed by a few moustache-twirling English Bad Men. There were native troops in action against the Sepoys and many Princely States didn't join at all. Also, in your version of India, how many European troops do you imagine there were?
There's no way the British could have maintained control of India without the co-operation of a large part of the Indian population.

Client states? The princely states were just powerless puppets, forced to tow the line of the British, and if they didn't, there was the implicit threat that they would be forcibly dethroned, just as what happened to the Mughal emperors.

Absolute nonsense. Also how do you explain Operation Polo if it's just the British who are the bad ones?
 
I think it is easy to forget the role of the war in all this. Shipping losses were heavy, the grain may have been available, but the means of transporting and escorting it were not. 1942 was something of high water mark for the Axis powers, later in the war I thing the famine would have manageable. Churchill may have prioritised the war effort, but that reflected a high degree of desperation on his part.
I wouldn't disagree with that, I did try to point out briefly why the British were reluctant to supply the shipping. It's certainly possible that providing the shipping would have prolonged the war. However I can't imagine the shipping wouldn't have been provided if it was white people at risk of starving to death.
 
The Indian Mutiny (not sure if that is the correct name anymore) was hardly suppressed by a few moustache-twirling English Bad Men.

Of course it wasn't. Indian races such as the Sikhs stayed fairly loyal because according to martial racialist theories, they were superior to others. Not all Indians were treated the same; some were treated horribly, others were treated less badly.

Not to mention, not everyone was loyal to Bahadur Shah Zafar and his attempt to remove the British. The Sikhs and Marathas hated the Mughal emperors for obvious reasons, and so they decided to ally with the British in the former case, and in the latter case attempted to form their own country. Still others believed he was more of a poet than a leader of a revolt, and decided that allying with him would just lead to the loss of their power. They weren't wrong on that, actually.

Absolute nonsense. Also how do you explain Operation Polo if it's just the British who are the bad ones?

I don't get your point. A prince tried to gain some power with the fall of British rule and caused mass violence in the act. All it demonstrates is that, while most puppets saw the way the wind was blowing and acceded to India and Pakistan, the two puppet states of Hyderabad and J&K tried to gain independence, failing tremendously.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
I'm sorry? Maybe I'm missing something but the Wikipedia page you link to doesn't appear to back up your claims that the British government intentionally instigated 'sectarian strife and mass murder'.

A guiltless, fair dealing country would not burn tons of documents in public, as though an army was marching on New Delhi.

What was on those document that needed conceal from the government(s)
they were handing power to, I wonder.

Something to do with the mass murders the British had already committed,
or allowed to happen, perhaps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India#Colonial_India

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noakhali_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_Bihar_riots

Did they burn documents when Canada, Australia, New Zealand became Dominions?
 
A guiltless, fair dealing country would not burn tons of documents in public, as though an army was marching on New Delhi.

What was on those document that needed conceal from the government(s)
they were handing power to, I wonder.

Something to do with the mass murders the British had already committed,
or allowed to happen, perhaps?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India#Colonial_India

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noakhali_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_Bihar_riots

Did they burn documents when Canada, Australia, New Zealand became Dominions?
That's rather conspiratorial of you.
Why would it be done in public? Much better to do in secret than go "mwahaha I'm burning all the evidence in front of you!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top