Explore India:

Role in War (1914-1918)

When world war broke out, the British army did not initially have the manpower or resources the other European nations had.  To supplement their smaller British expeditionary force, the Empire called upon its colonies for support, including India. The Indian army at the start of the war had over 150,000 men; this was the largest trained force the British had at the time.[1] These soldiers were spread out to different locations to serve where the British thought they were most needed. Many stayed to guard the northwest Indian frontier.  Others were sent to the western front, where they fought in several battles around Ypres in 1914 and 1915 when the area was attacked by German forces. However, the Indian soldiers serving in France were not acclimated to the cold climate and were inconsistently given modern equipment that they were not familiar with. Indian forces had more experience fighting colonial wars than the new mechanized, industrial conflict of the First World War. The Indian expeditionary force also fought in the German African colonies, and in the Middle East where they were crucial in the conflict in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Palestine.[2] They also aided in fending off the Germans during the 1918 spring offensives. By the end of the war, India had given 1.27 million soldiers to the cause and had lost roughly 60,000. This is a comparatively low number of casualties compared to other nations. However, it is important to keep in mind that the war was a culture shock to a country that had existed in relative peace up until this point.[3] By the end of the war, more Indians had traveled abroad than in the entire previous 50 years[4]. The war was responsible for bringing new ideas to India, as well as familiarizing the rest of the world with them.

Movement Before and During the War (1885 - 1918)

India had been a colony to Great Britain since 1858 and Indian nationalists had continually attempting to gain more independence since then. India was broken up into multiple provinces and states, all to some degree or another subject to British Rule, known as the British Raj. This included British restrictions on trade and their censorship laws. The hope of many Indians was to become a protectorate in the Empire, like Australia or Canada: still part of the Empire and benefiting from it, but ruling their own territory and people. The creation of the political party the India National Congress (INC) in 1885, was a prime example of such movements to attain self-government. Supported by the British rulers, the party consisted of mostly Hindus, the primary religious demographic at the time, and in its early days, was more of a debate club than a political party. They were a loose confederation of English educated, middle to high-class lawyers, teachers, businessmen, politicians, and elites who would debate and discuss British rule and the politics of the day. As time progressed, thousands would attend yearly meetings to have a say in the political machinations of India. British politicians hoped the congress could stave off growing political unrest and revolts in various districts of India. The Congress was designed for the attendees to meet once a year to point out defects in the current administration and propose improvements.[5] The general goal of the congress was to further include Indians within the martial, political, and commercial dealings of the British in order to safeguard the interest of Indians. Moderates who believed in the British system of government were often in charge of the INC for this part of its history.[6] It was a way to vent India’s frustration and potentially be the start of a parliamentary system, while simultaneously not interfering too greatly in British rule of the colony.

Though the INC claimed to speak for all Indians, it remained an elite organization, not properly representing a large number of poor in India and especially not the Muslim minority. Muslims had, to some degree or another, been an important part of Indian history since the initial Arab conquests in the early eighth century CE, with India being ruled by Muslim leaders for various parts of its history. By the late nineteenth to the early twentieth century, however, they were a minority to the Hindu population. Conservative Viceroy Lord Minto (1845-1914) pushed for the establishment of the Muslim League (IML) in 1906 to separate the two nationalities and make them easier to control. The IML initially served as an obstacle for the INC. While there was a division between the two groups, in 1914, the INC was slowly beginning to give more attention to the Muslim community.  At the 1916 INC meeting in Lucknow, the two congresses signed the Lucknow pact, agreeing to move forward together with becoming a self-governing Dominion in the British Empire while also promising Muslims more involvement in government than they currently had.

It was around this time that the famous activist Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) came into his own. Gandhi was born into a well-off family and studied law at 18 in England. He became a lawyer at an Indian firm in South Africa, defending Muslim Indians from racism for 20 years. It was in South Africa that Gandhi developed techniques for nonviolent protest known as Satyagraha, a focus on the soul and spiritual change. Gandhi believed that individuals must change in order for large changes to occur, and that nonviolence would force oppressors to be confronted with their own actions. In 1914, he returned to India and rose up the ranks of the INC, gathering support from the masses.[7] Gandhi believed strongly in the cause for Indian self-rule, promoting a more radical cultural and political separation from Great Britain.

During the war, the British government appreciated the massive amounts of manpower and resources India provided. So much so, that they would praise Indian loyalty and advise the buying of Indian goods in newspapers on the home front.[8] In 1917 a new liberal secretary of state for India was brought in, Edwin Montagu (1917-1922), the first secretary of state to visit India. The British, at this point, promised gradual moves towards self-government. Though vague, it was the first legitimate step taken by the British for an independent India since its inception as an official colony. Gandhi, who helped as part of the Red Cross during the war, urged the home rule leagues (the INC and the IML) to support the war and push recruitment. Though Gandhi had mixed feelings about the situation as a pacifist, the British had promised to aid in India’s self-governance for the support it had given, as the British said they were fighting for freedom.[9] Once the war concluded, and the armistice was signed, India waited to see how well the British kept their promises.

The Immediate After-Effects of the War and the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1922)

Indian prince and representative on the British Imperial War Cabinet, Maharaja Singh (1888-1943) of the Indian state Bikaner, had assembled a council of 600 other princes of India with the goal to ensure India achieved its independence. They convinced Prime Minister David Lloyd George that India, along with the other domains, should be allowed representation at the Paris Peace Conference, as initially India was not going to be involved. These representatives took part in the signing the Treaty of Versailles. This was a momentous occasion as it was the first time India had taken part in international politics of this magnitude. Aside from this, however, India was not much involved with the daily machinations of the Peace Conference. Much of the conference was about land claims, and India had no legitimate ones to speak of.[10] Indian nationalists did take note, however, of President Wilson speaking about self-determination and how nations should run themselves, not be subjected to others. Speaking about such rights on a global stage such as the peace conference drew the attention of many colonial societies hoping that Imperialism would end with the war. Interestingly, David Lloyd George was aware of India’s goal of self-determination, and even somewhat supported the idea. Unfortunately, Wilson’s sentiments mainly applied to central European countries and did not affect those in Africa or Asia.[11] Wilson’s empty words fell onto disgruntled ears.

To further increase tension, Indian representatives also took issue with the handling of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was home to the Ottoman Caliphate, the main political and religious center for the Islamic world. The post-war Ottoman Empire was dissolving and being split up by the powers at the conference, creating fear and concern among the Muslim community as to what would happen to the Caliphate. To Europeans, this seemed like a small issue, but not to the Muslims who made up roughly a quarter of the population of India. Some Indians even sided with the Ottoman Empire during the war. The Indian government urged the peacekeepers to leave some religious control to the Sultan in holy places in the Middle East, as to not disrupt an entire major religion. . Montagu brought up the issue at the conference, hoping to preserve some power for the Sultan. How they chose to carve up the Ottoman Empire could potentially alienate many loyal Indians. Unfortunately, the decision was put off, leaving a consistent tension as to the state of the Muslim world, including much of India. This created an antagonistic feeling towards the British, especially considering that much of the British Empire was made up of those practicing Islam.[12] The Caliphate would later collapse in 1924, creating a ripple effect throughout the Islamic world.

1919 was a busy year for India, as while they were participating in the Peace Conference, there were issues to deal with at home. In March of 1919, the Imperial Legislative council pushed for the adoption of the Rowlett Act. It served as a way to extend the emergency powers granted to the Viceroy of India Lord Chelmsford (1868-1933) during the war. This was done to deal with the anarchy and revolutionary movements that were growing in India at the time due to misgivings about British rule.[13] Under the Rowlett Act, if someone spoke against British rule, they could be detained without trial. If a person or groups were suspected of causing what the British referred to as anarchy or revolution, they could be held without the consent of juries. This refusal to give up emergency powers was met with a lot of resentment — leaving the Rowlett Act never fully implemented. However, the effects of it were still felt across India.

In addition, the Government of India act of 1919, also known as the Montagu-Chelmsford (MC) reforms, was passed. Basically, the act served as a way to involve more Indians in the government. It did so by expanding the Indian legislative council and making radical changes to how laws were made – adding a new legislature with an upper and lower house and generally loosening the reigns of British control a bit, though they still could veto any bill put forth.[14] This act did give Indians a little more mobility and influence within their own government but did virtually nothing for the country’s autonomy. Regardless, these were the first serious steps India had taken towards eventually becoming a democratic government. The INC was split, however, on its views of the act. Moderates believed that it was much better than nothing, and a decent way to move forward without revolution. These moderates created their own offshoot, the liberal party. Conversely, many of the INC believed that the changes were not enough, and India was now ready for full-on democracy. As time progressed, the overall dissatisfaction with the act grew.

Tensions reached a boiling point in April of 1919. Workers were striking, peasants were revolting, and Gandhi was pushing for a largely nonviolent strike across India. The country was allowed to participate in a conference deciding the fate of the world but was being stifled back at home by Great Britain, one of the main powers at the conference. A crowd gathered to peacefully protest the deportation of two political leaders in Amritsar, in the Punjab province on April 10th. The crowd was fired upon by the military, inciting violence from the crowd and across the province in general. This resulted in Indians burning buildings and tackling white men. Around 20 in the crowd were killed. Afterward, the government banned any public gathering larger than five people. Unfortunately, April 13 was Baisakhi day for Sikhs, another large religious group in India. Baisakhi day was a religious holiday where Sikhs gathered in the holy city of Amritsar to pray. Most who gathered were from smaller villages and did not hear of the new rule. When they met in Amritsar’s enclosed garden the Jallianwala Bagh, Brigadier-General Reginald Dryer (1864-1927) opened fire on the crowd with car-mounted machine guns manned by 90 Gurkhas, Indian soldiers serving the British army. The official numbers were 379 killed and 200 wounded. However, some estimates place the total number in the thousands. This event became known as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. This was the incident that forever soiled India’s view of Great Britain.[15] In response to the massacre, the British declared martial law in the Punjab province and the British papers defended Dyer's actions, labelling him a hero. They even raised 26,000 pounds for him, which equals over $100,000 in today’s US dollar. Dryer himself did not feel remorse for his actions, seeing them as necessary to be taken seriously. It was not until the following year that he was demoted and sent back to England for his actions.

As set back after set back affected India’s attempts at independence from the British government, the massacre served as the final straw. Trust in Great Britain was all but gone. Gandhi, who was now head of the INC, started a non-cooperation movement, denying the Act of 1919. In 1920 the INC’s goal was total self-rule for India by all peaceful means, as possible, known as Swaraj. However, the question of its status in the British empire was left undecided.[16] Martial law and the Rowlett act ended in 1922, creating a brief relaxation of tensions between the two countries, but anti-imperialism movements would lead India into its future.

Post-War and the Long-Reaching Effects (1922-1936)

India, as a whole, was infuriated at the British. Every day brought seemingly more reasons not to trust them to follow through on their promise to support India in gaining some semblance of independence. The British government had no problem using force to put down the riots and marches that had become commonplace in the last few years. Winston Churchill (1874-1965), secretary of state for the colonies, had no interest in giving India self-rule, despite the aid India gave to the war and the support it offered during the Paris Peace Conference. To many in the British government, this was just part of imperialism and not a significant threat to the empire. It was a trend during wartime that all special interests of allies were put aside for support in the conflict.

Much of the 1920s was a period of relative calmness in comparison to the previous years until the time came to renew the Government of India acts in 1929.[17] This brought everyone’s attention back to the uncomfortable topic of Indian self-rule. Viceroy of India Lord Irwin (1881-1959) and Labor Party leader Ramsay McDonald (1866-1937) acknowledged that India wanted more autonomy. They believed that the current system of government in India rife with shootings, deportations, and censorship would not be beneficial to India or Great Britain. They gave the INC until the last day of 1929 to accept the Motilal Nehru Report, which stated that in October, they would outline India’s position as a dominion. They also announced several round table meetings to discuss the agreement. However, the meetings went nowhere. The INC at this point, had begun a campaign of civil disobedience to protest further British involvement in India. Gandhi, at the behest of the INC, chose to break the government’s salt monopoly. Salt used to be free, but the British placed a fixed price on it for over one hundred years. This tax was the perfect example for Gandhi of how British rule and despotism had a negative effect on all Indians. Gandhi gathered followers who walked for about a month across India to the coast to collect their own salt from the sea and break British law.[18] Many taking part in this peaceful protest were beaten and imprisoned. This peaceful protest, however, inspired others to do the same and brought to the world’s attention the plight of the Indian people.

The salt march began a period of mass struggle in India, as more demonstrations and protests were underway. These were aimed not just at the idea of British rule in India, but also at the specific aspects of the rule that was constricting Indians, such as the laws taxing salt.[19] A few years later, the Act of 1935 was proposed as a replacement to the act of 1919. Overall, it would limit British Government involvement in India, leaving elected legislatures up to India’s discretion. Ministerial positions for Hindu Indians would be created. It would also combine various Indian provinces into a federation To the British, this mirrored how other dominions in the empire came to be. However, Indian legislatures were not allowed to make any amendments to the Act, and British commerce still had to be accepted and not discriminated against. India still would not have the right to foreign trade on their own terms or have a say in defense of the country, both internal and external, among a host of other complaints. The act would weaken the individual provinces, but strengthen the federation at the center, still leaving Britain a good amount of control.[20] There was even a question about the legitimacy and effectiveness of the proposed federation. Though the Act of 1935 was passed, the India Federation was never fully implemented. Still, the act caused much uproar and protest, especially considering India’s involvement in the post-war world.

While India was struggling with its own cause for independence, it was taking part in an international body with the goal of preserving freedom and self-determination, an irony not lost on the Indian people. India had been involved with the League of Nations from the beginning, despite its rocky start in the organization. As a colony, it was at first not considered eligible to join. However, due to its size and its participation in the war, it was allowed to join. As a founding member, India was an ever-present voice in the League. It was in this forum that India was able to gain more experience in international politics, and further to separate itself from Great Britain by voicing concerns for issues on its own accord. It was debated initially among the Indian delegates if the League could be used to aid in India’s push towards independence. However, this proved problematic. Though the League was founded on Wilsonian idealism, it could not rule against its own members, certainly not one as powerful as Great Britain.[21] Despite pushing for the idea of self-rule, the League could not quite escape the shadow of imperialism, and the colony of India would not find much assistance in the League. Regardless of this setback, India’s role in the League caused further drive at home for self-rule. Indian delegates participated in the League as consistently as any other nation would, taking the opportunity to establish themselves on international grounds and participating in the organization until its end.

Participating in the League improved India’s opportunity to join other international communities for the greater good that began during the inter-war period. This period of time saw a number of organizations and conferences created with the goal to prevent future war and atrocities from happening and to improve the standard of living around the world generally. Some were connected to the League of Nations, some were run by other countries, and some ran independently. India took part in organizations such as the Court of International Justice, the International Institute of Agriculture, and the World Peace Congress of 1936.[22] It also took part in several conferences in an effort to limit international arms, such as the Washington Naval conference of 1921, the London Naval conference of 1930, and the Disarmament Conference of 1932. The nation participated in these and more despite its colonial status.[23] In doing so, India secured its position among the international community and became an important and influential nation in the modern world.

 Conclusion

Indians fought to gain freedom for themselves since they were colonized. Throughout that history, the British governors in India dangled a figurative carrot of independence in front of India’s face and then taking it away when convenient. Be it the Act of 1858, the creation of the INC in 1885, the Act of 1919 or the Act of 1935, all were half measures inching towards the possibility of freedom, while also suppressing the people in one way or another.  India saw the First World War as an opportunity to prove itself loyal and earn its self-governance, giving massive amounts of material and manpower to the conflict to gain goodwill. Becoming part of the Peace Conference and the League was seen as similar progress towards self-rule, taking part in world-changing politics along with other powerful nations. Unfortunately, despite all of India’s accomplishments and its participation with other nations, it could not shake the status of a colony. Its success as a member of the League of Nations pushed the paradox of supporting freedom, but not fully having it. This left many Indians with negative feelings towards the British and the post-war Wilsonian ideals. This paradox Indians faced was a driving force in their eventual separation from the United Kingdom, though not until after another world war.

[1] David Reynolds, The Long Shadow (London: Simon & Schuster, 2014), 109.

[2] Max Hastings, Catastrophe 1914: Europe Goes to War (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2014), 473.

[3] Hew Strachan, The First World War (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003)

[4] The Great War “British India During World War 1: THE GREAT WAR special” YouTube video, https://youtu.be/bFTSCjn6wKI

[5] R.A. Hume, "The Indian National Congress," The Journal of Race Development 1, no. 3 (1911): 368

[6] S.R. Mehrotra, “The Early Organizations of the Indian National Congress, 1885-1920”, India Quarterly 22, no. 4 (1966): 343

[7] Mehrotra, 341

[8] Hastings, 295

[9] Reynolds, 111

[10] Margaret Macmillan, Peacemakers: Six Months That Changed the World. (London,: John Murray, 2001), 413

[11] National WW1 Museum and Memorial “The Peace of Versailles, A Global View-Erez Manela”. YouTube video, https://youtu.be/XZrXVB0kRj4

[12] Macmillan, 414

[13] Reynolds, 111

[14] R. Feetham, "The New Government of India Act," Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 3, no. 1 (1921): 101-11.

[15] Macmillan, 415

[16] Mehrota, 352

[17] Reynolds, 114

[18] Lee Joanne Collins, “What Happened During Gandhi's Salt March?,” ThoughtCo (March 6, 2017), https://www.thoughtco.com/gandhis-salt-march-1779287

[19] David Taylor, "The Indian National Congress: A Hundred-Year Perspective," The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, no. 2 (1987): 299

[20] Taylor, 116

[21] T.A. Keenleyside, “The Indian Nationalist Movement and The League of Nations: Prologue to The United Nations,” India Quarterly 39, no. 3 (1983): 283

[22] “India in League of Nations,” Pragati, May 24, 2015, http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2015/05/india-in-league- of-nations/)

[23] Keenleyside, 281