The Transfer of Power in India (original) (raw)
Related papers
British Interest in the Subcontinent and the Immediate Transfer of Power
Athens Journal of History, 2019
World War II had shaken the bases capitalist yoke. The ever shining sun of British ascendency was on the verge of sinking. The two-edged sword of technological advancement and Machiavellian tactics of statecraft was no more paved her way in the eastern awakening society. British were facing failure in every sphere of politics in the subcontinent. The growing monstrous menace of the communist yoke at the western border and even inside insurgency of workers in India compel the British to transfer power to Hindu bourgeoisie. The capitalist Hindu bourgeoisie incarnated in a socialist garb was the lost ray of hope for the British. All these were possible in united India according to the then tank thank of British, while truncated moth-eaten Pakistan was not perceived as a strong bulwark against communist assault. Although the latter progress in the political history Pakistan has proven the opposite side of the portrayed arena. The purpose of this study is to explore the real cause of British favoritism of Congress and their tendency toward Hindu bourgeoisie. This paper attempts to answer those questions by objectively examining and analyzing the major events of the decade preceding the partition, unquestionably the most critical period to the understanding of the causes of partition.
Anita Inder Singh " s The Partition of India, the book under review, was published more than a decade ago. A reassessment of this thesis after so many years, however, continues to be both timely and necessary since the subject, the partition of India, remains relevant in contemporary Indian politics, mainly for four reasons: firstly, the vast body of partition literature continues to dominate South Asian studies, which includes not only history, but also law and sociology. Secondly, this book places the study of India " s partition in the backdrop of the partitions of other European countries through the twentieth century that makes this study extremely relevant and suitable for review more than a decade after its original publication. Thirdly, the study of South Asian politics affecting and affected by the partition needs to be explained and reviewed freshly to reveal the causes that went into the making of the vivisection. And fourthly, this book continues to be relevant since the partition still haunts the public memory of numerous Indians, quite a few of whom lived in this subcontinent at the time of the vivisection. The relevance of the topic, given the magnitude of the crisis and its aftereffects, does not diminish in merely a decade. This book offers a well crafted explanation of the course of events that eventually led to the division of two of the largest and most densely populated provinces of British India at the time of the India " s independence from British rule in the middle of the twentieth century. Written from the point of view of high politics, this book offers a plausible explanation of the factors that led to the endgame of empire and its final denouement, leading to the creation of India and Pakistan, the two successor states of the British Empire in South Asia. The author reveals not only a detailed but also a nuanced grasp over the development of political events that were responsible for the first partition of the Punjab and the second partition of Bengal in 1947. These two vivisections adversely affected the lives of millions of Indians in the aftermath of the dismantling of an empire, changing the course of the history and politics of South Asia in a way that few other partitioned provinces or regions in the world have had to cope with in the last century.
The power behind the throne: Relations between the British and the Indian states 1870-1909
2003
This thesis explores the manner in which British officials attempted to impose ideas of 'good government' upon the Indian states and the effect of such ideas upon the ruling princes of those states. The work studies the crucial period of transition from traditional to modem rule which occurred for the first generation of westernised princes during the latter decades of the nineteenth century. It is intended to test the hypothesis that, although virtually no aspect of palace life was left untouched by the paramount power, having instigated fundamental changes in princely practice during minority rule the British paid insufficient attention to the political development of their adult royal proteges. In many cases traditional royal practice and authority were deemed expendable in the urgency to instigate efficient and accountable methods of administration in states. The five sections following the introduction examine the life cycle of an Indian prince and the role of British o...
After Nehru, what? Britain, the United States and the other transfer of power in India, 1960-1964
2011
In November 1959, India's Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, turned seventy. Having led his country since Britain's departure from South Asia in August 1947, Nehru's seventieth birthday stimulated debates, both inside and outside the Indian subcontinent, on India's future in a post-Nehruvian world. In the early 1960s, with the Indian premier's health deteriorating and Sino-Indian relations under strain, British and US policymakers evidenced increasing concern with whom, or perhaps more pertinently, with what, forces would govern the world's largest democracy after Nehru. This article, which draws upon recently released British and US archival records, provides the first assessment of Western involvement in the struggle to succeed Nehru which occurred within India's ruling Congress Party between 1960 and 1964. Moreover, it offers insights into Anglo-American concern that Nehru's health adversely affected Indian policymaking; the involvement of foreign intelligence services in India's domestic politics; and the misplaced expectations of British and US officials that the appointment of Lal Bahadur Shastri as India's second Prime Minister, in May 1964, would herald the beginning of a new and more productive relationship between India and the West.
British Attitudes to the Partition of India.docx
The end of the Second World War signalled the beginning of the end of the British Empire and reigned in a new era for India and the newly created state of Pakistan. This dissertation will focus solely between the years of 1944 and 1947. These years are the period in which the most drama played out in the British and Indian theatres. It was the period when opinions were highly motivated and the public and media could focus on an alternative to war on the International agenda. The opinions of politicians form an intriguing argument as to why a depleted but Imperialistically strong Conservative party whimpered out of the argument in these late stages, into what Robert Holland sees as a "nice conundrum", 1 and how the Labour party a friend to Indian Independence felt about a betrayal to the Indian nationalists that had been promised in the preceding years. There are historiographical views within the literature that state mainly from an Indian perspective that is exceptionally critical of the British in this time frame, Menon is one who states the British should have handled the situation better. 2 The wider literature has focused mainly on national issues and the surrounding politics of partition however recent studies have focused more on the local and regional affects, such as Moon and Royle and their interpretations of English officer's personal feelings which this dissertation hopes to expand. In response to knowing the political opinions of the time the next question that has to be posed is that of was public opinion on the matter of partition crucial in the politicians decision making of the intervening years, or were the public the supportive mouthpiece of Government policy in an era of social reform and realisation. In order to truly understand the full implications of the concepts of partition the opinion of the press has to be fully understood in relation to the sympathisers and those who did not support partition. As Mushirul Hasan writes 'never before in South Asian history' have so many being dictated to by so few men and Lady Mountbatten. 3 Throughout the research period some key questions have arisen and have been answered in this piece. One of the most obvious questions was what were the differences between the differing political classes in Britain surrounding the Indian problem and the resolution to it. This question is important as it opens up the debate to a wider context surrounding the public and the issue of different classes within British society. This type of view is echoed through Parsons, as Attlee's Government would only go as far as the people push them. 4 Also in relation to this point a question that must be raised surrounding politicians is what motives have they got in either supporting or neglecting the process of partition and the legislation that would eventually be passed. These views 1 Nicholas Owen The Conservative Party and -6 -can be seen to change over a short time period from 1945 through 1947. The British reforms of 1919
The Punjab under Colonialism: Order and Transformation in British India
________________________________________________________________ When Punjab was annexed in 1849, the British had already created well-established systems of political governance, financed by its efficient land revenue administration. Experience in Madras and Bengal afforded the British insight and expertise to gauge Punjab's potential as the 'model agricultural province' from 1860s onwards. Peace and prosperity in the province made service in the Punjab Commission of the Indian Civil Service extremely coveted. Hence special rules had to be devised so that creaming off the ablest officers could be precluded. For the British, Punjab was important because of the loyalty and prosperity of the cultivators. Therefore the 'troublesome' nationalist agitators were not given free reins. However ensuring political stability along with the agricultural development was a daunting task. The author investigates the threefold process of (i) ownership and transfer of land, (ii) agrarian development and social engineering and (iii) customary law that formed the cornerstone of the British policy of political control. ________________________________________________________________ When the British annexed the Sikh kingdom of the Punjab in 1849, they already ruled most of the subcontinent. From the mid-eighteenth century onwards, the East India Company had transformed itself from a trading monopoly to a territorial ruler. It had created well-established systems of political control which were financed by its efficient land revenue administration. In Madras this was based on the encouragement of peasant proprietors, in Bengal on the protection of the zamindars. Yet within a few years, the Punjab was regarded as India's model agricultural province. 1 Service in the Punjab Commission of the Indian Civil Service was so attractive that special rules had to be introduced to prevent it creaming off the ablest administrators. The Punjab's esteem in the colonial authorities' eyes rested on the loyalty and prosperity of its cultivators. The former characteristic ensured that 'troublesome' nationalist agitators were kept at bay; the latter was an eloquent testament to the British ability to do good to their Indian subjects. The requirements of political stability and agricultural development were not, however, as easily reconciled as the self-congratulatory official colonist discourse allowed. This paper examines the contradictions between order and transformation which lay at the heart of the imperial enterprise in Punjab with respect firstly, to ownership and transfer of land, secondly, to agrarian development and social engineering, and thirdly, to customary law. Before turning to these areas, it is necessary to examine the background to the conflicting claims of order and transformation in the Punjab's colonial discourse.