The Indian Congress Party declared 'purna swaraj', complete independence, from Britain on January 26th 1930. Yet, little more than a year later, Gandhi conceded that there would be no 'purna swaraj'- just Dominion status at the end of a long tunnel. All that Gandhi gained was the right for people to make salt. But, the salt tax continued. Indeed it still exists. As for Independence, Congress admitted it could not deliver any such thing. It accepted the Constitution imposed by the British Conservatives and formed Ministries wherever it gained majorities. Congress had been tamed. It cooperated on terms dictated to it. Since the Federal aspects of the Constitution were not implemented, the National Character of the movement was bound to decay. Then came the War. It was not till the Japs were at the gate that Gandhi raised the cry 'Quit India'. But the Japanese were beaten without any help from Congress. A Famine in Bengal was brought to an end by a soldier turned Viceroy. Another Viceroy unilaterally decided to grant India independence ahead of schedule. Congress asked the guy to stay on for another 9 months. Thus Congress did not actually win Independence at all. It was put in by the British in return for guarding Britain's financial interests in India.
Was Congress's failure to secure Independence in the Thirties inevitable?
No. The Great Depression was gathering pace. The new Labor Government was facing a financial crunch. Indeed, it fell in August 1931 because it couldn't stomach enforcing a cruel and counterproductive austerity. Thus, there was a window in when Congress- supported by Bombay capitalists who were exasperated with British trade and currency policy- could force concessions from a not wholly hostile Cabinet while inflicting tremendous pain on the Indian economy. But if this happened, it would mean that no other group would have an incentive to hold out for a continued British role in India. Thus, Congress had a second chance- the first being in 1922- to get Independence for India. This time, the window was narrower and when it shut, it shut permanently. The Bombay industrialists did a separate deal with the Brits. The 'minorities' saw that pretending loyalty to the Crown increased their leverage. Congress would never again be in a position to lead the country to Independence. It was now just another political party and would only inherit power after the Brits- under a third Labor Government, this time one with a majority- decided to pull the plug on an insolvent enterprise. Indeed, Nehru himself gained pre-eminence thanks to his personal prestige- based on having delivered everything the Brits wanted post-Independence- around the Globe. But India had not really won Independence. Under Nehru, it returned to a childlike state- toothlessly biting the American hand that fed and protected it. Its prestige declined. Over the course of the Sixties, newly independent countries chose the One Party model- that of China- over the Indian model. Why? India was a country which hadn't won its Freedom and which, once free, could not feed or defend itself- save against its equally shitty but much smaller neighbor, Pakistan.
India had two opportunities to ride a wave of World history to independence. The first concerned the successful Turkish resistance to European Colonialism which showed that the tide had turned against the Occident. The second was the Great Depression. In both instances, the possibility of Bolshevik support was a 'force multiplier'. India, thanks to Gandhi- but also the Nehrus- failed to ride either wave. Independence came with the bankruptcy of Europe and independent India's role was to permit Britain to keep its influence and rebuild its financial status.
The big advantage with seizing rather than being granted Independence is that a genuine freedom struggle inculcates useful, knowledge based, skills. If India, as a united nation of Hindus and Muslims had gained independence in the Twenties it would have developed an offensive capacity- both diplomatic and military- with respect to Imperialism. This would have been good for the region and good for India. In the Thirties, India had a chance of taking an independent Economic policy. One big benefit would have been that the Modi-Lee agreement freezing out the Japanese would have been avoided. Being outside the Sterling zone and 'Imperial preference' would have meant India would have concentrated on promoting trade with the MENA, China and the Soviet Union. Japanese capital would have played a part in this. A non militaristic 'Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere' would have been possible. India's failure to genuinely fight- rather than pretend to fight and funk out at the last minute- for Independence meant that it remained economically and militarily weak and child like in its resentment at being so dependent.
India today can't be said to have developed any indigenous institutions or ideologies. Even the Nehru dynasty is not indigenous. It is held together by an Italian origin lady whose father was a Fascist. Hindutva may be called indigenous. But it is on the wane and the period of its ascendancy was brief. Indians may still bang on about Gandhi and Nehru and Ambedkar- but these were foreign educated crackpots whose ideas have been rejected by India.
The truth is India did not 'win' Independence. Independence was thrust upon it. But this was not an inevitable outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment