Question

I am doing an essay on an "examination of reasons why Britain lost India". What would be a list of reasons I could include in the paper? (in logical order - i.e. one reasons links to the next) So far I have ... (see below).

• Maltreatment of indians
• Movements led by Gandhi; include a rise in nationalistic spirit
• Economic decline after WWII - mainly incited by Hitler

^^is this a good way to do it? (Each point would be a body paragraph and in detail)

Answer 1

British desire to divest itself of Colonies after World War 2.
The War itself transformed Asia.

Explanation:

In World War 2 Britain depended on the manpower and resources of its Colonies. Part of the price for that co-operation was independence.

The Election of the Labour Party in 1945 and the complete exhaustion of Britain's finances after World War 2 made Britain start to let go of its Colonies in the Post War period.

Britain no longer had the Military resources available to maintain order in its Empire particularly with expectations of independence being so high after the War. Armed and trained independence groups had developed during the War and returning veterans join in too. The War guaranteed that large numbers of weapons were available.

Japan had shown that an Asian army could defeat the White Armies. As well Japan had been a haven for Asian Independence pre War. The European Military no longer was the implacable force that it was.

Indian Troops fought all over the world during the War. These young men had seen much more of the world than India. This experience would affect them and their political views. The post War period was a new starting point for the World after the nightmare of the war.

The Labour Party was anti-colonialist and began to transform Britain to a more socialist path.

Answer 2

By the middle of the Second World War, it was clear the UK had to let India go; not just because of Indian nationalism, but also because of the Atlantic Charter and for economic reasons.

Explanation:

The long campaign for self-rule in the British Raj and the growth of Indian nationalism had slowly gained strength through the 1920s and '30s, but the campaign was a long way from being won at the start of the Second World War. It would be a debatable point as to whether Indian nationalism would have succeeded on its own without the war before, say 1960.

However, in August 1941, even before the US had entered the war, the summit of Churchill and Roosevelt off Argentia, Newfoundland, had led to an agreement on war aims and the conditions of the post-war world. The Atlantic Charter essentially defined the world after 1945.

Part of the Charter outlined the right of self-determination for all peoples, which basically made the continuation of imperial systems invalid. The other side of the equation is that even imperial systems govern with the consent of the governed. Many of the people of Asia and Africa had seen the confidence and self-assurance of the Colonial powers become badly weakened.

Also, the war was a world war -- there had been combat all throughout the French colonial sphere; where the British also made significant use of African and Indian troops -- particularly to defeat the Italian empire in Africa and the Japanese occupation of Burma. Enough of the troops realized that if they were fighting for the freedom and self-determination of others, then perhaps what about their own? A question for later, but a question all the same.

It was also clear that maintaining colonial empires had become an expensive proposition even before 1939, but Paris, London, Rome, Tokyo, and Lisbon were coping. However, the new economic rules following out the Atlantic Charter made colonial systems much less valuable, turning them from being (usually) under-performing assets into liabilities. Rome and Tokyo lost their empires in the war, but Britain and France (reluctantly) had to shed theirs. Portugal -- which was neutral during the war -- still lost most of theirs by 1975.