1. Introduction
In September 1898, a British-led army steadily approached Omdurman, a city in the Sudan just west of the Nile River. The British planned to capture the city and thus take command of the entire Nile Valley before their rivals, the French, could do so. Britain had gained control of Egypt in 1882. This expedition would extend Britain’s rule more deeply into the African continent.
An army of Mahdists opposed the mixed British and Egyptian force. The Mahdists, Sudanese followers of the Muslim religious leader al-Mahdi, greatly outnumbered their opponents. Yet they had nowhere near their technical skill or firepower. The campaign to conquer the Sudan showcased British industrial might. British engineers had built a 383-mile-long railway across the desert to transport troops and supplies. Their steam-powered gunboats controlled the Nile River. Their modern rifles and machine-guns could fire a barrage of bullets a distance of 1,500 yards or more.
Many Mahdists carried rifles, but they were older, less effective models. Most fought with spears or swords. During the battle, British artillery shells and bullets mercilessly cut down the Mahdist warriors as they charged across the sandy plain. Thousands of them died. Winston Churchill, a British soldier at Omdurman, later wrote that the slaughter was “a matter of machinery.” He called his fellow troops “soldiers of scientific war.”
Industrialization, with its advances in military science and technology, was a key factor in the British victory at the Battle of Omdurman. By 1914, Britain and a handful of other industrialized European nations would control most of Earth’s surface—both land and sea. Along with Japan and the United States, they comprised the world’s main imperialist powers.
Themes
Cultural Interaction Western imperialist powers introduced new technologies, political ideals, and religious beliefs into Asia and Africa.
Economic Structures The age of industry helped trigger the new imperialism, through which Western powers sought new sources of raw materials and new markets for their exports.
Social Structures Conquests led Europeans to see themselves as superior to conquered Asian and African peoples.
In September 1898, a British-led army steadily approached Omdurman, a city in the Sudan just west of the Nile River. The British planned to capture the city and thus take command of the entire Nile Valley before their rivals, the French, could do so. Britain had gained control of Egypt in 1882. This expedition would extend Britain’s rule more deeply into the African continent.
An army of Mahdists opposed the mixed British and Egyptian force. The Mahdists, Sudanese followers of the Muslim religious leader al-Mahdi, greatly outnumbered their opponents. Yet they had nowhere near their technical skill or firepower. The campaign to conquer the Sudan showcased British industrial might. British engineers had built a 383-mile-long railway across the desert to transport troops and supplies. Their steam-powered gunboats controlled the Nile River. Their modern rifles and machine-guns could fire a barrage of bullets a distance of 1,500 yards or more.
Many Mahdists carried rifles, but they were older, less effective models. Most fought with spears or swords. During the battle, British artillery shells and bullets mercilessly cut down the Mahdist warriors as they charged across the sandy plain. Thousands of them died. Winston Churchill, a British soldier at Omdurman, later wrote that the slaughter was “a matter of machinery.” He called his fellow troops “soldiers of scientific war.”
Industrialization, with its advances in military science and technology, was a key factor in the British victory at the Battle of Omdurman. By 1914, Britain and a handful of other industrialized European nations would control most of Earth’s surface—both land and sea. Along with Japan and the United States, they comprised the world’s main imperialist powers.
Themes
Cultural Interaction Western imperialist powers introduced new technologies, political ideals, and religious beliefs into Asia and Africa.
Economic Structures The age of industry helped trigger the new imperialism, through which Western powers sought new sources of raw materials and new markets for their exports.
Social Structures Conquests led Europeans to see themselves as superior to conquered Asian and African peoples.
2. The New Imperialism
Starting around 1500, European states practiced imperialism by establishing coastal outposts and colonies in Africa, the Americas, and Asia. Their purpose was to support overseas trade. Independence revolutions and the ending of the slave trade severely eroded the imperial system. By the early 1800s, the extent of Western empires had decreased considerably. However, later in the century, a new form of imperialism appeared. A different set of imperialist powers once again sought to expand by exerting control over lands, resources, and peoples beyond their borders.
Renewed Expansion The new imperialism varied from the old style. Typically, under the old imperialism, a European merchant ship would sail to a colonial port, where it picked up a load of slaves or spices or other goods. Often, with demand being low for Europeans’ products, they paid in silver—a “cash-and-carry” arrangement. By around 1800, this mercantile economic system had faded away. Later, a new system evolved. Europeans still took control of foreign lands. But the resulting colonies served not only as sources of raw materials and food but also as markets for machine-made products.
What gave rise to this new imperialism? The answer is not clear-cut. Trade still played a part. But it was no longer the key driving force. The European expansion of the last quarter of the 1800s appears to have come about in a haphazard, unplanned manner. Historians cite a complex mix of possible economic, political, and social factors to explain the rise of new imperialism.
Starting around 1500, European states practiced imperialism by establishing coastal outposts and colonies in Africa, the Americas, and Asia. Their purpose was to support overseas trade. Independence revolutions and the ending of the slave trade severely eroded the imperial system. By the early 1800s, the extent of Western empires had decreased considerably. However, later in the century, a new form of imperialism appeared. A different set of imperialist powers once again sought to expand by exerting control over lands, resources, and peoples beyond their borders.
Renewed Expansion The new imperialism varied from the old style. Typically, under the old imperialism, a European merchant ship would sail to a colonial port, where it picked up a load of slaves or spices or other goods. Often, with demand being low for Europeans’ products, they paid in silver—a “cash-and-carry” arrangement. By around 1800, this mercantile economic system had faded away. Later, a new system evolved. Europeans still took control of foreign lands. But the resulting colonies served not only as sources of raw materials and food but also as markets for machine-made products.
What gave rise to this new imperialism? The answer is not clear-cut. Trade still played a part. But it was no longer the key driving force. The European expansion of the last quarter of the 1800s appears to have come about in a haphazard, unplanned manner. Historians cite a complex mix of possible economic, political, and social factors to explain the rise of new imperialism.
Industrialization One factor that nearly all historians agree on is industrialization. As French statesman Jules Ferry wrote in 1890, “Colonial policy is the daughter of industrial policy.” Nations that mechanized their manufacturing sector became more productive. As a result they needed an increasing supply of natural resources—such as cotton, wool, timber, ore, dyes, and petroleum—to feed their growing industries. And those industries needed larger markets for their manufactured goods. By dominating lands overseas, a country could help fulfill both needs.
Industrialization also increased nations’ wealth and power. That gave them a huge advantage in warfare against less developed countries, as the Battle of Omdurman showed. Advances in military technology included rifles that shot farther and more accurately and steam-powered warships that served as platforms for artillery.Some scholars argue that such military advantages led naturally to imperialism. Industrialized European states, they say, expanded because they could.
Political and Socio-Economic Motives Western powers also had political reasons for engaging in imperialism. In the 1800s, competition among those powers was as fierce as ever. Control of key locations or resources could give a country a strategic edge over rival states.
Imperialism also gave political leaders an edge at home by helping them unify public opinion. Social and economic issues—poverty, labor strikes, business downturns—multiplied as countries industrialized. That led to political fragmentation as various interest groups arose to push for reforms. The ability to dominate other lands enhanced a country’s status and prestige, giving its citizens a sense of national superiority that encouraged unity. Thus the popularity of an imperialist foreign policy helped politicians overcome political differences and gain support for their domestic policies.
Industrialization also increased nations’ wealth and power. That gave them a huge advantage in warfare against less developed countries, as the Battle of Omdurman showed. Advances in military technology included rifles that shot farther and more accurately and steam-powered warships that served as platforms for artillery.Some scholars argue that such military advantages led naturally to imperialism. Industrialized European states, they say, expanded because they could.
Political and Socio-Economic Motives Western powers also had political reasons for engaging in imperialism. In the 1800s, competition among those powers was as fierce as ever. Control of key locations or resources could give a country a strategic edge over rival states.
Imperialism also gave political leaders an edge at home by helping them unify public opinion. Social and economic issues—poverty, labor strikes, business downturns—multiplied as countries industrialized. That led to political fragmentation as various interest groups arose to push for reforms. The ability to dominate other lands enhanced a country’s status and prestige, giving its citizens a sense of national superiority that encouraged unity. Thus the popularity of an imperialist foreign policy helped politicians overcome political differences and gain support for their domestic policies.
“White Man’s Burden” Feelings of superiority also had a cultural aspect. Europeans saw themselves as a culturally advanced people with a mission, or duty, to civilize more “backward” peoples. This led Christian missionaries to travel to foreign lands to bring their religion and culture to those they considered less fortunate. British poet Rudyard Kipling called this the “White Man’s burden”:
Take up the White Man’s burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples
Half devil and half child.
—Rudyard Kipling, “White Man’s Burden,” 1899
In the late 1800s, Western peoples knew that they had far outstripped others in creating new technology. That led them to believe that they were not only culturally but also biologically superior to the races of peoples in Africa and Asia that they dominated.This racist viewpoint helped them justify their imperialism and the way they treated people in their colonies.
Take up the White Man’s burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples
Half devil and half child.
—Rudyard Kipling, “White Man’s Burden,” 1899
In the late 1800s, Western peoples knew that they had far outstripped others in creating new technology. That led them to believe that they were not only culturally but also biologically superior to the races of peoples in Africa and Asia that they dominated.This racist viewpoint helped them justify their imperialism and the way they treated people in their colonies.
3. Colonies and Spheres of Influence in Asia
In Asia in the late 1800s, European states held colonies in a number of prime locations. Where colonies were not practical, they established spheres of influence. A sphere of influence is an area within which the political and economic interests of one nation are favored over other nations. Britain, with its large and powerful navy, led the domination of the continent. Its imperialist ventures centered on South Asia.
South Asia The story of imperialism in South Asia is the story of the British in India. Until 1858, the British East India Company had administered colonial India. The Company’s control ended after the Great Rebellion, sometimes called the Indian Mutiny.
The Great Rebellion broke out in 1857 among soldiers of the British-led Indian army. British distribution of cartridges greased with animal fat triggered the rebellion. Before loading a cartridge into their gun, soldiers had to bite off the end of it. Indian soldiers found this extremely offensive culturally. Their Hindu and Muslim religions both forbade oral contact with animal fat. However, the Great Rebellion actually reflected pent-up hostility toward the British, who had, over the years, not only challenged Indians’ religious beliefs but also dominated their political and economic lives.
The British squelched the rebellion, but it caused them to alter their Indian foreign policy. The colony came under the direct control of Parliament, a period known as the British Raj. British rule grew more authoritarian. A former British official in India, Sir James Stephen, offered a reason for taking a harsh approach to governing. “It will never,” he wrote in 1883, “be safe for the British Government to forget for a moment that it is founded not on consent but on conquest.”
The Great Rebellion shocked the British. They had misjudged the extent of Indian resentment. Afterward, the British cut back on efforts to turn members of India’s upper classes into Europeans. They did train Indians for government jobs in the Indian Civil Service. But they were kept from rising to policy-making positions, which were held by the 1,000 or so British members of the Civil Service. Britain continued to manage much of the Indian economy, introducing some industrial technology into a society based on farming. India’s population rose, but so did the incidence of famine.
In Asia in the late 1800s, European states held colonies in a number of prime locations. Where colonies were not practical, they established spheres of influence. A sphere of influence is an area within which the political and economic interests of one nation are favored over other nations. Britain, with its large and powerful navy, led the domination of the continent. Its imperialist ventures centered on South Asia.
South Asia The story of imperialism in South Asia is the story of the British in India. Until 1858, the British East India Company had administered colonial India. The Company’s control ended after the Great Rebellion, sometimes called the Indian Mutiny.
The Great Rebellion broke out in 1857 among soldiers of the British-led Indian army. British distribution of cartridges greased with animal fat triggered the rebellion. Before loading a cartridge into their gun, soldiers had to bite off the end of it. Indian soldiers found this extremely offensive culturally. Their Hindu and Muslim religions both forbade oral contact with animal fat. However, the Great Rebellion actually reflected pent-up hostility toward the British, who had, over the years, not only challenged Indians’ religious beliefs but also dominated their political and economic lives.
The British squelched the rebellion, but it caused them to alter their Indian foreign policy. The colony came under the direct control of Parliament, a period known as the British Raj. British rule grew more authoritarian. A former British official in India, Sir James Stephen, offered a reason for taking a harsh approach to governing. “It will never,” he wrote in 1883, “be safe for the British Government to forget for a moment that it is founded not on consent but on conquest.”
The Great Rebellion shocked the British. They had misjudged the extent of Indian resentment. Afterward, the British cut back on efforts to turn members of India’s upper classes into Europeans. They did train Indians for government jobs in the Indian Civil Service. But they were kept from rising to policy-making positions, which were held by the 1,000 or so British members of the Civil Service. Britain continued to manage much of the Indian economy, introducing some industrial technology into a society based on farming. India’s population rose, but so did the incidence of famine.
4. Impact of Imperialism
By 1900, powerful Western states controlled half the continent of Asia. They ruled some nine tenths of Africa. Their influence extended over a quarter of the Americas. The actions of these imperialist powers had a complex mix of positive and negative effects on colonized peoples.
Imperialism killed people, especially in Africa. European armies used force—often brutal—to secure and hold on to territory. One example is the rebellion by the Herero and Nama people in German South West Africa. In 1904, the rebels killed about a hundred traders and farmers. The German response was to try to exterminate the two African groups. Only a quarter of the original population of 100,000 Herero and Nama survived the slaughter that followed.
At the same time, imperialism had some humanitarian consequences Through the 1800s, European societies developed a sense that slavery was morally wrong. It went against their ideals of liberty and equality. By 1888, all Western nations had abolished slavery. They used their wealth and superior military power to try to root out this evil not just in their colonies, but everywhere. As a result, slavery declined markedly in Africa, the Philippines, Indonesia, and elsewhere.
Many other aspects of Western society found their way into distant colonies, in a process known as Westernization. The imperialists imposed their own legal systems, taxes, and political administration. They introduced Western education, medicine, technology, languages, and dress.They worked to convert native peoples to Christianity.
Colonizers also improved their colonies’ infrastructure. This supported their key economic goal—expansion of a colony’s exports. Europeans built railroads to transport goods from plantations and mines to the nearest port. There they constructed warehouses to hold the goods and harbor facilities to serve the cargo ships that carried the goods. However, they stopped short of encouraging their colonies to industrialize. In general, colonized lands continued to serve solely as sources of raw materials and a few consumer goods well into the twentieth century.
By 1900, powerful Western states controlled half the continent of Asia. They ruled some nine tenths of Africa. Their influence extended over a quarter of the Americas. The actions of these imperialist powers had a complex mix of positive and negative effects on colonized peoples.
Imperialism killed people, especially in Africa. European armies used force—often brutal—to secure and hold on to territory. One example is the rebellion by the Herero and Nama people in German South West Africa. In 1904, the rebels killed about a hundred traders and farmers. The German response was to try to exterminate the two African groups. Only a quarter of the original population of 100,000 Herero and Nama survived the slaughter that followed.
At the same time, imperialism had some humanitarian consequences Through the 1800s, European societies developed a sense that slavery was morally wrong. It went against their ideals of liberty and equality. By 1888, all Western nations had abolished slavery. They used their wealth and superior military power to try to root out this evil not just in their colonies, but everywhere. As a result, slavery declined markedly in Africa, the Philippines, Indonesia, and elsewhere.
Many other aspects of Western society found their way into distant colonies, in a process known as Westernization. The imperialists imposed their own legal systems, taxes, and political administration. They introduced Western education, medicine, technology, languages, and dress.They worked to convert native peoples to Christianity.
Colonizers also improved their colonies’ infrastructure. This supported their key economic goal—expansion of a colony’s exports. Europeans built railroads to transport goods from plantations and mines to the nearest port. There they constructed warehouses to hold the goods and harbor facilities to serve the cargo ships that carried the goods. However, they stopped short of encouraging their colonies to industrialize. In general, colonized lands continued to serve solely as sources of raw materials and a few consumer goods well into the twentieth century.
5. Shooting An Elephant - George Orwell
"Shooting an Elephant" is an essay by George Orwell, first published in the literary magazine New Writing in the autumn of 1936 and broadcast by the BBC Home Service on October 12, 1948.
The essay describes the experience of the English narrator, possibly Orwell himself, called upon to shoot an aggressive elephant while working as a police officer in Burma. Because the locals expect him to do the job, he does so against his better judgment, his anguish increased by the elephant's slow and painful death. The story is regarded as a metaphor for British imperialism, and for Orwell's view that "when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys."
Story Background:
Britain conquered Burma over a period of 62 years (1823–1886), during which three Anglo-Burmese wars took place, and incorporated it into its Indian Empire. It was administered as a province of India until 1937, when it became a separate, self-governing colony, attaining its independence on January 4, 1948. With a strong interest in the lives of the working class, Orwell—born in India to a middle-class family, but brought up in Britain—held the post of Assistant Superintendent in the British Indian Imperial Police in Burma from 1922 to 1927.
"Moulmein used to be full of elephants [employed to] haul logs in the timber firms. Ordinary tamed elephants have been part of Burmese life for centuries: [and] the rare and revered white elephant, is believed in Buddhist legend to be a symbol of purity and power." By the time Orwell moved to Moulmein, in 1926, "he was most probably ambivalent about the colonial state of which he was a part. The Kipling-inspired romance of the Raj had been worn thin by the daily realities of his job in which he witnessed 'the dirty work of Empire at close quarters.' Orwell writes how he was trapped between his own resentment towards the Empire and the Burmese people's resentment towards him. As a member of the ruling power, he is cornered into doing what the 'natives' expect of him: He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. "
"Shooting an Elephant" is an essay by George Orwell, first published in the literary magazine New Writing in the autumn of 1936 and broadcast by the BBC Home Service on October 12, 1948.
The essay describes the experience of the English narrator, possibly Orwell himself, called upon to shoot an aggressive elephant while working as a police officer in Burma. Because the locals expect him to do the job, he does so against his better judgment, his anguish increased by the elephant's slow and painful death. The story is regarded as a metaphor for British imperialism, and for Orwell's view that "when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys."
Story Background:
Britain conquered Burma over a period of 62 years (1823–1886), during which three Anglo-Burmese wars took place, and incorporated it into its Indian Empire. It was administered as a province of India until 1937, when it became a separate, self-governing colony, attaining its independence on January 4, 1948. With a strong interest in the lives of the working class, Orwell—born in India to a middle-class family, but brought up in Britain—held the post of Assistant Superintendent in the British Indian Imperial Police in Burma from 1922 to 1927.
"Moulmein used to be full of elephants [employed to] haul logs in the timber firms. Ordinary tamed elephants have been part of Burmese life for centuries: [and] the rare and revered white elephant, is believed in Buddhist legend to be a symbol of purity and power." By the time Orwell moved to Moulmein, in 1926, "he was most probably ambivalent about the colonial state of which he was a part. The Kipling-inspired romance of the Raj had been worn thin by the daily realities of his job in which he witnessed 'the dirty work of Empire at close quarters.' Orwell writes how he was trapped between his own resentment towards the Empire and the Burmese people's resentment towards him. As a member of the ruling power, he is cornered into doing what the 'natives' expect of him: He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. "
6. Independence for India
The first large-scale resistance to the British Raj occurred in response to Britain's division of Bengal into two separate provinces in 1905. Bengal was a region in northeastern India populated by 85 million people. The British had long considered the province too large to govern effectively. However, English-educated Bengalis saw the split as a destruction of their beloved homeland and an attempt to reduce Hindu power. The fact that one of the new provinces contained a Muslim majority inflamed their discontent. To protest these developments, they organized a boycott of British goods. The Indian National Congress soon spread the boycott throughout India. Nationalist protesters took to the streets in cities across India. Some of these demonstrations turned into violent riots.
The intensity of the Hindu reaction concerned India’s Muslims, many of whom favored the division of Bengal. Especially troubling was the Hindus claim that Bengal was a Hindu land. To protect Muslim rights and promote loyalty to the British, Muslim elites formed the All-India Muslim League in 1906. They hoped their organization would balance the power of the Indian National Congress, which Hindus dominated.
In 1912, British officials reversed course and reunited Bengal. The action restored the power and prestige of the Indian National Congress, which had been weakened by its failure to undo the split. However, Muslim leaders felt betrayed. They began to question their support of the British and the status of Muslims in India.
India in World War I Tensions were temporarily forgotten as World War I began in 1914. More than 300,000 troops of the British Indian Army were rushed to overseas battlefields. The British Indian Army reinforced Allied troops on Europe’s Western Front and fought against Ottoman forces in the Middle East. India’s maharajas volunteered men and money to the war effort. Although some Indian Muslims hesitated about waging war against the Muslim Ottoman Empire, by the war’s end in 1918, some 1.3 million Indians had served on every major front.
As the fighting raged, Britain promised to make major political changes in India after the war. This led the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League to form a temporary alliance. They believed that Britain might reward India’s loyalty by offering home rule or even complete independence and they wanted to be united in dealing with any British reforms. However, despite Britain’s promises, little positive change took place. British officials returned, and they ousted Indians who had taken their place during the war. Indian soldiers, who had been treated as valuable allies during the war, became “natives” again.
The first large-scale resistance to the British Raj occurred in response to Britain's division of Bengal into two separate provinces in 1905. Bengal was a region in northeastern India populated by 85 million people. The British had long considered the province too large to govern effectively. However, English-educated Bengalis saw the split as a destruction of their beloved homeland and an attempt to reduce Hindu power. The fact that one of the new provinces contained a Muslim majority inflamed their discontent. To protest these developments, they organized a boycott of British goods. The Indian National Congress soon spread the boycott throughout India. Nationalist protesters took to the streets in cities across India. Some of these demonstrations turned into violent riots.
The intensity of the Hindu reaction concerned India’s Muslims, many of whom favored the division of Bengal. Especially troubling was the Hindus claim that Bengal was a Hindu land. To protect Muslim rights and promote loyalty to the British, Muslim elites formed the All-India Muslim League in 1906. They hoped their organization would balance the power of the Indian National Congress, which Hindus dominated.
In 1912, British officials reversed course and reunited Bengal. The action restored the power and prestige of the Indian National Congress, which had been weakened by its failure to undo the split. However, Muslim leaders felt betrayed. They began to question their support of the British and the status of Muslims in India.
India in World War I Tensions were temporarily forgotten as World War I began in 1914. More than 300,000 troops of the British Indian Army were rushed to overseas battlefields. The British Indian Army reinforced Allied troops on Europe’s Western Front and fought against Ottoman forces in the Middle East. India’s maharajas volunteered men and money to the war effort. Although some Indian Muslims hesitated about waging war against the Muslim Ottoman Empire, by the war’s end in 1918, some 1.3 million Indians had served on every major front.
As the fighting raged, Britain promised to make major political changes in India after the war. This led the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League to form a temporary alliance. They believed that Britain might reward India’s loyalty by offering home rule or even complete independence and they wanted to be united in dealing with any British reforms. However, despite Britain’s promises, little positive change took place. British officials returned, and they ousted Indians who had taken their place during the war. Indian soldiers, who had been treated as valuable allies during the war, became “natives” again.
Massacre at Amritsar In 1919, the viceroy’s legislative council passed a series of laws—which every Indian council member opposed—extending wartime measures that had limited personal rights and freedoms. Intended to suppress political unrest, the laws allowed the government to shut down newspapers during emergencies and to jail political activists without trial. A Congress member, Mohandas Gandhi, called for ageneral strike to protest these laws and launched a nationwide movement for its repeal.
The strongest protest came from Punjab, a northwestern province that had provided nearly half of India’s combat troops during the war. In April, two nationalist leaders were arrested at a huge protest rally in the city of Amritsar. When the protesters demanded their leaders’ release, British troops fired on them. Several protesters were wounded or killed. The enraged mob rioted, destroying British property and killing several Britons. The British responded by banning further public assemblies.
Despite the ban, some 10,000 unarmed Indian men, women, and children gathered in a walled square on April 13, 1919, for a peaceful protest. A British general placed soldiers at the entranceway and ordered them to fire on the crowd. There was no escaping the terror. Several minutes and some 1,650 rounds of ammunition later, nearly 400 protesters lay dead. More than 1,000 others were wounded.
The Amritsar Massacre shocked all of India and raised Gandhi to leadership in the Indian National Congress. The general was removed from command, but the British did not severely punish him. Gandhi called this response a “whitewash.” British leaders finally made some minor reforms that allowed Indians to be elected to provincial councils. It was not enough. The Congress adopted a policy of resistance to British rule. Millions of other Indians suddenly became nationalists. After years of patiently accepting British rule while they waited for change, they now wanted Britain out of India.
Mohandas Gandhi “I can no longer retain affection for a government so evilly manned as it is nowadays,” Gandhi wrote in 1920.He made it his mission to change that situation. Gandhi’s methods for resisting British rule made him one of the most influential political figures of the twentieth century.
Gandhi was born in 1869, the son of a high official in a small princely Hindu state in western India. At age 18, he went to Britain to study law. Returning to India, he found few opportunities for success as a lawyer. So in 1893, he went to work for an Indian firm in South Africa. There, his legal training and personal encounters with racial prejudice caused him to lead a long struggle to gain equal rights for South Africa’s Indian minority.
Returning to India in 1914, Gandhi soon became a member of the Indian National Congress. However, he refused to take part in any anti-British activities until 1919. But the insensitive reaction of the British to the Amritsar Massacre drove him to launch a resistance movement that employed tactics he had used in South Africa.
Gandhi’s Satyagraha Movement In 1920, Gandhi announced a campaign of massive and widespread nonviolent resistance and noncooperation with the British. He called on Indians to boycott all British goods, businesses, schools, courts, and elections. He urged them to refuse any titles, honors, or offices the British offered—and, if all else failed, to refuse to pay British taxes. He claimed that only the total withdrawal of support for British rule would bring freedom for India.
The strongest protest came from Punjab, a northwestern province that had provided nearly half of India’s combat troops during the war. In April, two nationalist leaders were arrested at a huge protest rally in the city of Amritsar. When the protesters demanded their leaders’ release, British troops fired on them. Several protesters were wounded or killed. The enraged mob rioted, destroying British property and killing several Britons. The British responded by banning further public assemblies.
Despite the ban, some 10,000 unarmed Indian men, women, and children gathered in a walled square on April 13, 1919, for a peaceful protest. A British general placed soldiers at the entranceway and ordered them to fire on the crowd. There was no escaping the terror. Several minutes and some 1,650 rounds of ammunition later, nearly 400 protesters lay dead. More than 1,000 others were wounded.
The Amritsar Massacre shocked all of India and raised Gandhi to leadership in the Indian National Congress. The general was removed from command, but the British did not severely punish him. Gandhi called this response a “whitewash.” British leaders finally made some minor reforms that allowed Indians to be elected to provincial councils. It was not enough. The Congress adopted a policy of resistance to British rule. Millions of other Indians suddenly became nationalists. After years of patiently accepting British rule while they waited for change, they now wanted Britain out of India.
Mohandas Gandhi “I can no longer retain affection for a government so evilly manned as it is nowadays,” Gandhi wrote in 1920.He made it his mission to change that situation. Gandhi’s methods for resisting British rule made him one of the most influential political figures of the twentieth century.
Gandhi was born in 1869, the son of a high official in a small princely Hindu state in western India. At age 18, he went to Britain to study law. Returning to India, he found few opportunities for success as a lawyer. So in 1893, he went to work for an Indian firm in South Africa. There, his legal training and personal encounters with racial prejudice caused him to lead a long struggle to gain equal rights for South Africa’s Indian minority.
Returning to India in 1914, Gandhi soon became a member of the Indian National Congress. However, he refused to take part in any anti-British activities until 1919. But the insensitive reaction of the British to the Amritsar Massacre drove him to launch a resistance movement that employed tactics he had used in South Africa.
Gandhi’s Satyagraha Movement In 1920, Gandhi announced a campaign of massive and widespread nonviolent resistance and noncooperation with the British. He called on Indians to boycott all British goods, businesses, schools, courts, and elections. He urged them to refuse any titles, honors, or offices the British offered—and, if all else failed, to refuse to pay British taxes. He claimed that only the total withdrawal of support for British rule would bring freedom for India.
Some Indian leaders questioned Gandhi’s tactics. They declared that a violent uprising was needed. Gandhi rejected the use of violence. However, his experience in South Africa had taught him the value of being the target of it. The small Indian population in South Africa had faced a seemingly impossible task in its struggle with the powerful and oppressive white government. Yet the thousands of Indians willing to accept jail or beatings for refusing to obey laws or end strikes caused their movement to succeed. It was a terrible ordeal for them, but it had brought attention to an unjust government.
Indians were not a minority in India, of course, but its British government was just as powerful as the one in South Africa. Gandhi claimed that millions of Indians engaged in peaceful civil disobedience would bring Britain’s colonial officials to their knees. He urged his followers to use only the weapons of satya (truth) and ahisma (nonviolence or noninjury) against their British oppressors. In time, he stopped using the term “passive resistance” to describe his strategy and adopted the more accuratesatyagraha (truth-force) instead. For Gandhi, satyagraha blended politics with deeply-held Hindu beliefs. Many of his followers viewed him as a guru, or spiritual teacher. They called him Mahatma, or “Great Soul.”
Resistance, Conflict, and Compromise Gandhi’s noncooperation movement was an immediate success. Millions of Indian voters boycotted the provincial elections of 1920. Congress members who were running for seats on provincial councils withdrew their candidacies. By 1922, widespread civil disobedience had put some 60,000 Indians in prison. Yet British policy stayed the same. So Gandhi decided to use his most powerful weapon—a boycott on payment of taxes. However, before he could organize this final boycott, some of his followers in northern India trapped and killed 22 officers inside their police station. Shocked and disappointed by this event, he ended the noncooperation campaign.
Sensing that Gandhi was losing support, the British arrested him. During the two years he was in jail, his support did slip. Some members of Congress formed a political party that took part in the 1923 elections and called for home rule. When he regained his freedom in 1924, Gandhi found that much had changed. Radical young Congress members charged that he had betrayed the independence movement by ending the satyagraha. They were calling for armed rebellion against Britain. Worst of all, the unity between Hindus and Muslims that existed during the satyagraha had dissolved. Tired and discouraged, Gandhi withdrew from politics.
In 1927, the British government formed a commission to suggest reforms for India’s government. Outraged that this commission contained no Indians, Gandhi returned to public life. He again became head of the Indian National Congress. In 1928, the Congress demanded the Britain grant India dominion status within a year. When this demand was not met, Gandhi launched a second satyagraha. Its high point was the famous Salt March of 1930. This protest of a minor tax on salt shocked both the British and the Congress. But it was a stroke of genius.
Indians were not a minority in India, of course, but its British government was just as powerful as the one in South Africa. Gandhi claimed that millions of Indians engaged in peaceful civil disobedience would bring Britain’s colonial officials to their knees. He urged his followers to use only the weapons of satya (truth) and ahisma (nonviolence or noninjury) against their British oppressors. In time, he stopped using the term “passive resistance” to describe his strategy and adopted the more accuratesatyagraha (truth-force) instead. For Gandhi, satyagraha blended politics with deeply-held Hindu beliefs. Many of his followers viewed him as a guru, or spiritual teacher. They called him Mahatma, or “Great Soul.”
Resistance, Conflict, and Compromise Gandhi’s noncooperation movement was an immediate success. Millions of Indian voters boycotted the provincial elections of 1920. Congress members who were running for seats on provincial councils withdrew their candidacies. By 1922, widespread civil disobedience had put some 60,000 Indians in prison. Yet British policy stayed the same. So Gandhi decided to use his most powerful weapon—a boycott on payment of taxes. However, before he could organize this final boycott, some of his followers in northern India trapped and killed 22 officers inside their police station. Shocked and disappointed by this event, he ended the noncooperation campaign.
Sensing that Gandhi was losing support, the British arrested him. During the two years he was in jail, his support did slip. Some members of Congress formed a political party that took part in the 1923 elections and called for home rule. When he regained his freedom in 1924, Gandhi found that much had changed. Radical young Congress members charged that he had betrayed the independence movement by ending the satyagraha. They were calling for armed rebellion against Britain. Worst of all, the unity between Hindus and Muslims that existed during the satyagraha had dissolved. Tired and discouraged, Gandhi withdrew from politics.
In 1927, the British government formed a commission to suggest reforms for India’s government. Outraged that this commission contained no Indians, Gandhi returned to public life. He again became head of the Indian National Congress. In 1928, the Congress demanded the Britain grant India dominion status within a year. When this demand was not met, Gandhi launched a second satyagraha. Its high point was the famous Salt March of 1930. This protest of a minor tax on salt shocked both the British and the Congress. But it was a stroke of genius.
The Salt March began in April 1930, when Gandhi led a group of followers on a 240-mile walk from his home to the sea. Hundreds more joined the march as it passed through rural villages. Images of this frail man striding forward, staff in hand, to confront the British over a tax on a basic human need won Gandhi worldwide attention and support. The brutality of the British response to this nonviolent action, which for the first time included women, also affected world opinion.
Besides women, the second satyagraha included other groups who had not taken part in the earlier campaign. For the first time, large numbers of people in central and south India gave the movement their support. The civil disobedience inspired by the Salt March resulted in 60,000 arrests in 1931. In one three-month period in 1932, some 40,000 Indians were arrested. Many of those jailed, including Gandhi himself, remained there for up to two years. After his release, Gandhi again retired from politics and resigned from the Indian National Congress. Jawaharlal Nehru, who had been elected President of the Congress in 1929, succeeded him as its head.
Ominously, Muslims’ support for Gandhi’s first satyagraha was missing in his second. One reason was the riots between Hindus and Muslims that engulfed every major northern Indian city in 1924. However, Muslim leaders had also become concerned about Hindu domination of the independence movement. They worried about being shut out of any negotiations with the British that might shape the future of India’s government. By 1930, some Muslims had begun to call for a separate nation for their minority community.
The Muslim League did not join these calls until 1940. It still hoped to work with the Indian National Congress to create one independent India. However, in 1935 Britain increased Indians’ power in their provincial governments. In the elections that followed this reform, the Indian National Congress—which had reorganized as a political party, the Congress Party—won control of nearly every province in India. It rejected a coalition with the Muslim League as unneeded. Only two powers existed in India, Nehru said—the Congress and the British. The Muslim League responded by working hard to build its popularity and power among Muslims. By World War II, the divisions were in place that split British India after the war.
Besides women, the second satyagraha included other groups who had not taken part in the earlier campaign. For the first time, large numbers of people in central and south India gave the movement their support. The civil disobedience inspired by the Salt March resulted in 60,000 arrests in 1931. In one three-month period in 1932, some 40,000 Indians were arrested. Many of those jailed, including Gandhi himself, remained there for up to two years. After his release, Gandhi again retired from politics and resigned from the Indian National Congress. Jawaharlal Nehru, who had been elected President of the Congress in 1929, succeeded him as its head.
Ominously, Muslims’ support for Gandhi’s first satyagraha was missing in his second. One reason was the riots between Hindus and Muslims that engulfed every major northern Indian city in 1924. However, Muslim leaders had also become concerned about Hindu domination of the independence movement. They worried about being shut out of any negotiations with the British that might shape the future of India’s government. By 1930, some Muslims had begun to call for a separate nation for their minority community.
The Muslim League did not join these calls until 1940. It still hoped to work with the Indian National Congress to create one independent India. However, in 1935 Britain increased Indians’ power in their provincial governments. In the elections that followed this reform, the Indian National Congress—which had reorganized as a political party, the Congress Party—won control of nearly every province in India. It rejected a coalition with the Muslim League as unneeded. Only two powers existed in India, Nehru said—the Congress and the British. The Muslim League responded by working hard to build its popularity and power among Muslims. By World War II, the divisions were in place that split British India after the war.
War, Partition, and Independence In September 1939, Britain issued India’s declaration of war on Germany without even consulting Indian leaders. The Congress Party’s provincial governments resigned in protest. The party demanded immediate independence in return for India’s support in the war. A renewed civil disobedience campaign resulted in the arrest of 20,000 Congress members by 1941.
In 1942, with Japanese troops threatening British Asia, Britain countered with an offer of independence after the war. Suspicious of British promises, Congress rejected the compromise. It began a violent campaign to drive the British from India. British troops crushed the uprising.Authorities cracked down by arresting some 60,000 more Congress members, including its entire leadership, and imprisoning them for the rest of the war.
These events delighted the Muslim League, which supported the war in every way possible. As the government’s split with Congress widened, its ties with the League grew closer. The Muslim League asked the British to include a separate nation for Muslims in any plan for India’s independence.
On August 15, 1947, British India became the independent nations of India and Pakistan. Some 15 million people—Hindus, Muslims, and members of other groups—fled their homes in order to be on the “right” side of the border. As many as a million others were slaughtered in the religious violence that accompanied that migration.
In 1942, with Japanese troops threatening British Asia, Britain countered with an offer of independence after the war. Suspicious of British promises, Congress rejected the compromise. It began a violent campaign to drive the British from India. British troops crushed the uprising.Authorities cracked down by arresting some 60,000 more Congress members, including its entire leadership, and imprisoning them for the rest of the war.
These events delighted the Muslim League, which supported the war in every way possible. As the government’s split with Congress widened, its ties with the League grew closer. The Muslim League asked the British to include a separate nation for Muslims in any plan for India’s independence.
On August 15, 1947, British India became the independent nations of India and Pakistan. Some 15 million people—Hindus, Muslims, and members of other groups—fled their homes in order to be on the “right” side of the border. As many as a million others were slaughtered in the religious violence that accompanied that migration.