|
To
understand correct history of India's independence and partition, it is
necessary to know Britain's economic position after WW II. Churchill had
said, "We are not fighting this war (and spending money) to lose
our Empire". Till the war end British politicians did not understand
that though empire was necessary for the British, they had no power left
to rule it. Colonial secretary, Cranebourne (the grandson of Lord Salisbury),
in 1942 believed that "British Empire is not dead, it is not dying,
it is not even going into decline." On April 4, 1945 at the meeting
of Commonwealth conference, he scoffed at the idea of end of British Empire.
By 1945 end, the picture changed dramatically. Atlee was to tell Chief
Minister Dr. Roy, that the British were in a hurry to quit as they had
found that the Indian army was no more loyal to the British.
It is also necessary to know American foreign policy, as they wanted world
hegemony replacing colonial empires of Europeans and Japanese. In 1920,
writer Ludwell Denby wrote, "The US was Britain's colony once. Now,
Britain would be a colony of the US. What chance Britain has got against
America? Or what chance has the world?" Even till War end, British
did not understand the full economic and military weakness of Britain
and wanted their Empire to continue. It took 20 years for Britain to understand
its weakness to have an empire.
Britain's gold and dollar reserves, which had exceeded $4 billion in 1938,
had fallen to $1 billion by September 1940. By nationalizing the private
overseas investment holdings of its citizens and offering these for sale
abroad, England created $4.5 billion for war. It spent $3.6 billion to
purchase arms from the U.S.A. during the following two years. Even these
were insufficient to meet its war needs. When the U.S. Congress signed
the Lend-lease Act into law on March 11, 1941, England was left with only
$12 million in uncommitted reserves. The Act covered a period of two years.
The Act had clauses of elimination of all forms of discriminatory treatment
in international commerce and reduction of tariff and other trade barriers.
England began to get supplies for its war needs under Lend Lease. Due
to repayment clause brought in by the U.S. Congress in 1943 at the time
of renewal, Lend-Lease was to become a means by which the U.S. might gain
control of the British Empire's most economically productive assets, its
raw material resources.
The U.S. deliberately kept the wartime reserves of Britain at lower level.
For, the lower the level at which British war time reserves were kept,
the greater would be British dependence on American post-war assistance.
The greater that dependence, the greater would be the chances of gaining
acceptance of American views on multilateral trade.
After Japanese surrender, Britain owed $20 billion to the U.S. on account
of Lend-Lease and $180 million for Lend-Lease in the pipeline. British
foreign investment of $4.5 billion were gone; on the other hand Britain
owed $14 billion worth blocked sterling balances in London. These debts
represented the sterling area's receipts from the export to England of
raw materials and foodstuffs. They also represented the British troops
support costs of armies in Egypt and India, and the cost of financing
Indian Army in its campaign on foreign soil. England had become a war
debtor.
England's financial position was precarious at war end. She stood at the
doorstep of financial insolvency. Her exports had fallen to less than
one third from pre-war level. Half of her merchant shipping was sunk.
Her gold reserves were down to mere $12 million in 1945. Britain was financially
exhausted and on the verge of a violent revolution by the working class
suffering under privations.
Prime Minister Atlee had to run to Washington for help. A financial agreement
was signed on December 6, 1945. Under the terms of the agreement the U.S.
extended a loan of $4.4 billion. England was compelled, under the Lend-Lease
agreements and the December post-war agreement to fracture imperial preference
and to open all markets to U.S. competition. The post war agreement required
Britain not to increase imperial preference and, in some cases, even to
eliminate them.
In December 1946, Wavell went to England. On December 5, Wavell and Cabinet
discussed the effect on worldwide British Empire's position in Middle
East of Britain's withdrawal from India. They found that Pakistan (which
would be under British influence) was necessary. On December 25, Wavell
met Bevin and Alexander and made a note in his diary, "Labor Cabinet
members were also imperialists and hated the idea of leaving India."
It is an interesting question as to what would have happened, if the British
did not quit as wanted by Churchill. The answer requires knowledge of
two basic facts. (No. 1) After the war, nationalism emerged as the strongest
force in the world. This was not anticipated by American and European
leaders e.g. Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin. The second strongest force
was communism, which was sweeping over Europe and Asia. (No. 2) 87% of
capital of companies operating in India was British.
Had the British refused to quit, there would have been armed revolt, and
extensive damage to property and loss of lives - both British and Indian
- would have resulted. England was already financially bankrupt and on
the verge of revolution, like other countries of Europe. The added demands
of money and blood required from working class would have definitely created
a revolt. Both India and England would have become communist. The result
would have been the same, had those opposed to partition in India prevailed.
In a telegram to Commonwealth Prime Ministers, Atlee said that it was
urgent to hand over power, because reassertion of British authority by
force "would, even if it is practicable ... result in spread of revolutionary
extremism, probably in a communist form." Patel's acceptance of compromise
of partition in December 1946 resulted in benefits to both sides. Big
British investments were saved by poor Britain. All Britons in India remained
safe. Indians got 80% of India free - free to develop his starving country
to remove the curse of poverty. Wise and brave (?) people, who criticize
Patel, should note this. Their misconception is due to false assumption
that Labor Party and Atlee were good and wanted to give India independence
and that Jinnah outmaneuvered Congress and got Pakistan. Jinnah was a
minor actor in this drama and had little effect on final result. He became
a British stooge. If not he, some other Muslim leader would have become
a stooge of British and done their bidding.
|
|
Learn
more on : Eliminations of war, Pakistan's Islamic bomb,,neo-imperialism,geo
politics, peace among mankind, independence of india,partition,atomic
bomb, nuclear weapons, Japan and Germany in Second World War, American
Imperialism
|