“Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves
Britons
never, never, never shall be slaves”. Thomas Arne 1740
Singing this 18th century pop song still divides the British population in a culture war. On one side are those who feel the Empire was a proper expression of the state of things, a progressive and beneficial enterprise, showing the strength and superiority of Britain and its elevated place in the world. On the other side are those who recognise Britain’s position in the global league table is not and should not be compared to the days of Victorian pre-eminence, but that without throwing its weight around, it is still a rich and important country.
Empires evolve over time and yearning for presumed
past greatness is self-disabling. As historian David Reynolds writes, “the
fixation with ‘decline’ - seen as real or psychological - misses the essential
historical point: what’s truly remarkable is the story of Britain’s ‘rise’…the
country’s principal advantage was a relatively secure island base during what
was still the age of sea-power”. A lead in international industry and commerce,
protected by an efficient and well developed navy, was surely the key in the imperial
century of 1815-1914.
1919 Imperial Sunset
After World War I the British Empire covered nearly a
quarter of the world’s land area and the same share of its population. Yet 1919
was the crunch year, the imperial sunset. The Versailles Treaty stressed self-determination,
the right of a country or people to rule themselves. It was hard for Britain
to support this for others, yet deny it to those in its own Empire. Clearly
Britain had no right to rule people who didn’t want to be so ruled. But many
slow learners who had absorbed the British imperial idea just couldn’t unthink
it.
Severe doubts were raised about managing a large and
attenuated group of lands straight after the Boer War. The Royal Navy was not strong
enough to protect everyone, everywhere. Dominions like Canada, Australia and
New Zealand were in practice too far away to be ruled from London, so were
effectively running their own affairs. And whatever the rights and wrongs of
things, it was becoming increasingly obvious that with the huge costs of WWI,
Britain could no longer afford an empire.
The greatest 19th century expansion of
British power took place in Africa. But India, long the ‘jewel in the crown’ of
the British Empire, was the key problem, and a divisive issue both in India
itself and in Britain. The Dominions, now labelled as the British Commonwealth,
had signed the 1919 peace treaties themselves and joined the newly formed League of
Nations as independent states. These were ‘white’ run countries. India was run
by the Indian Civil Service with a largely effective use of local cultural
practice in civil law and administration.
Jewel in the crown
In 1917, partly in recognition of India’s huge contribution to the wartime Allied forces, India Secretary Montagu issued a Grand Declaration that Britain would now be “increasing the association of Indians in every branch of the administration, and the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India”. The 1919 Government of India Act followed, based on joint rule, or ‘diarchy’. This was a complex scheme for part central, part provincial rule, with a sort of doubling up of administrative tasks between London and local appointees. It signalled that India would soon govern itself and then become independent.
Edwin Samuel Montagu
The April 1919 massacre of perhaps 1000 civilians in Amritsar killed this momentum. A dreadful event that divided British and Indians for good, it also split Britain, as many swallowed the spin that the killings had stopped a revolt. It strengthened the resolve of the independence movement. Gandhi’s Congress Party ended cooperation with the Indian government, launching a policy of widespread civil disobedience. Every London move was behind the curve - not enough to win Indian support but with the permanent risk of defeat in the Westminster Parliament, where imperialist sentiment and a lack of realism blocked progress. Many, including former Cabinet minister Winston Churchill, were implacably opposed to Indian independence.
A series of Round Table Conferences was held from 1930 to 1931 in London amid Gandhi’s Salt March. In fact Congress suspended civil disobedience so Ghandi could attend one of these gatherings. But his claim to represent all of India was not backed by other delegates. It was a tall order to get this sub-continent with so many languages, religions and provincial authorities - including numerous hereditary princes - to agree on such important issues. The Round Tables failed.
At last, in 1935 a new Government of India Act created a form of federal self-government, but with reserved powers for Britain. The only problem was that no major group in India accepted it. Nehru called it “a machine with strong brakes but no engine” and a “Charter for Slavery”. Moslem leader Jinnah called it “thoroughly rotten, fundamentally bad and totally unacceptable”. As for the proposed Federation, even the princes couldn’t agree to it. Congress leaders were jailed or otherwise restricted until in 1942, after the collapse of Britain’s Far East position, India was promised total independence.
After World War II, in 1947, Britain finally pulled
down the curtain on its ‘jewel in the crown’, 30 years after it was first signalled in
Montagu’s Grand Declaration. The nature of the sub-continent with its numerous
languages, religions and cultural traditions meant this would always be a tough
task. But while India had many competing interests - and independence in practice was judged possible only with partition, establishing a mainly Moslem Pakistan - it was long
opposed by British irreconcilables. Both nations joined the Commonwealth, a
source, perhaps, of some satisfaction.
Wider imperial interests
While India was by far the most important British
imperial issue between the wars, Egypt also figured on Whitehall’s worry list. Never
officially part of the Empire it was a British ‘protectorate’ but without legal
support. Egypt was pivotal to Britain’s global strategic position, with the Suez
Canal critical for India and Far East trade links and proximity to Britain’s
Gulf oil supplies. When the protectorate was ended in 1922 little changed, as
Britain kept a strong base and armed forces there. Britain’s Cairo Embassy was
in reality the Middle East’s dominant power centre.
After World War II Britain was spending up to 20% of
its GDP on defence, much of it on maintaining a global presence. For a country
carrying heavy post war debts this was unsustainable. But if 1919 was the
Empire’s tipping point, total extrication took another 50 years. From
Versailles onwards a continuing British imperial mindset was often a source of
strain and tension with the key US ally, particularly evident as the two fought
together in World War II. The 1956 Suez crisis exposed British weakness and the
limits of American tolerance.
Imperial propaganda
So what are the myths? The British Empire was hardly a totally benign entity helping colonised lands and people. It certainly had its share of cruelty and exploitation. Slavery was a big part of its early development and even well into the 20th century, brutality and lack of care towards native peoples was all too common. Of course Britain managed some useful and constructive things throughout the empire. But the Amritsar massacre harmed Britain’s reputation in India and beyond, while the full story of the torture and killings in Kenya is restricted and yet to be told.
Far from being a source of wealth, the Empire in the
20th century was a huge and increasingly costly entity. And rather
than establishing the country’s strength - punching above its weight - the
imperial burden showed Britain’s weakness and caused friction with allies,
including most notably the US. It took many people in Britain a long time to
accept that respect is earned by what the country does - in which it had a
generally good record - rather than by how many people it ruled who didn’t always
wish to be so ruled.
Post imperial sentiments
Despite today's cultural scrapping, unfortunately stirred by
the government, with popular if childish media froth over statues and songs, Britain remains
a major country. As David Reynolds says, “it’s the only European member of the
Western Alliance apart from France, to maintain a capacity for power projection
outside the NATO area…It ranks among the top three in both inward and outward
foreign investment. The result is a position in power and wealth that one might
expect for a post-colonial state of its size, population and resources. And the
country’s history, culture and language constitute immense ‘soft-power’ assets.”
No comments:
Post a Comment