If Reading, a gifted prosecutor, played cat and mouse with Gandhi, what did Irwin do? It is difficult to say. The Indian view was that he was the tool of Birkenhead (F.E.Smith, a staunch Imperialist and ally of Churchill). In other words, he hoped to marginalize leaders like Nehru and Jinnah. It may be that the Tory moderates- e.g. Zetland- really had some such crazy scheme in their heads. Like their appeasement policy towards Hitler, it seems the aristocratic Tory was a brainless as well as chinless wonder. Yet, this is deceptive. Afterall, only the British aristocracy remained unscathed by the massive political changes in Europe. India and Pakistan were retained as members of the Commonwealth.
In the case of Gandhi- who was holy in a bovine manner but was fraudulently claiming he wanted the Brits to fuck off- they prevailed without violence. With Hitler, they gave him enough rope. Their aim was to ensure it was the Tories, not Labor, which led the Commonwealth into the War. After it,Labor was welcome to do Reconstruction at home and Imperial retrenchment abroad. The aristocratic Tory moderate lived to see an England 'which never had it so good' though even they would have been surprised when the 14th Earl of Home gave up his title to become PM. He was only brought down by a bizarre sex scandal featuring KGB agents. In other words, these Viscounts and Marquesses and Earls gave themselves a soft landing.
Turning to India, Andrew Roberts wrote in 'Holy Fox' that Lord Irwin took advantage of Labor's victory in the May 1929 British General Election- in particular the appointment of Benn as Secretary for India- to completely overturn the previous 'die hard' policy of Churchill and F.E Smith. A more charitable view is that the Viceroy did his constitutional duty. He was loyal to the policies of the new Secretary of State. True, this put Baldwin (his Party Chief) in a pickle but that was Baldwin's look-out.
Three Viceroys- Curzon, Reading, Irwin- were proper politicians. Others, like Willingdon or Linlithgow had social but not political prestige back home. Interestingly, the 'political' Viceroys were politically disastrous. Curzon partitioned Bengal before having to resign because he picked a fight with Kitchener. Rufus Isaacs was the most hated Viceroy (by the Brits in India) though he ran circles around Gandhi. Irwin, too, was felt to be soft on Gandhi. Moreover, he backed the Simon Commission, anger at which once more united Muslim and Hindu. However, the 'Holy Fox' and his family were personally popular. Once Labor fell- or Ramsay changed sides- Willingdon crushed Congress with insulting ease. Linlithgow too crushed resistance while mobilizing India's resources for the war. The Army, however, had never wanted to run India and Wavell, as Viceroy, said so. A naval man, Mountbatten, finally cut the cord though he became a great friend of Nehru.
Roberts thinks that Irwin (known as Halifax in UK history) was influenced by his experience in India, facing Gandhi, and this led him to become an 'appeaser'. This is a profoundly silly view. Reading had only negotiated with Gandhi so as to break up his alliances and finally destroy his credibility once and for all. Irwin's stupidity (it was he who insisted on the all British Simon Commission) revived Gandhi's career who then found the Salt tax issue. True, while Benn was Secretary of State, the Indians were bound to create problems. But it was by no means inevitable that Congress would be foolish enough to let Gandhi fuck everything up once again. Anyway, Willingdon- who knew India best- pursued the same policy Indira Gandhi did in the mid-Seventies- viz. beat and lock up the blathershites. Unlike Indira, Willingdon didn't need to worry about being assassinated by some crony of her son.
The father of the 'holy Fox' had wanted to bring Catholicism and Anglicanism together. The son hoped to promote peace on the continent. Perhaps the Germans and the Poles and the Hungarians- after dividing up Czechoslavakia between them, could come to an agreement regarding eating up the Soviet Union. Sadly, Stalin was quicker off the mark in getting a deal with Hitler to gobble up Poland. What took Halifax & Co by surprise was France's sudden and complete collapse. Britain stood alone.
Why did this not create an opportunity for Gandhi and Congress? The answer is obvious. Gandhi was a fucking cretin. After War was declared he wrote an article saying that the Brits must hand over the Army to Congress before fucking off. This was because Congress is a Hindu party. Hindus are addicted to Ahimsa. Thus, without British protection, Hindu Congress would suffer under the heel of the Muslims and the Punjabis. The problem with saying 'we are shit at fighting' is that though this may be reassuring to an occupying power, it also means that your support in a miliary conflict is not worth having. Beating and imprisonment will keep you quiet. Your people can be recruited to do menial labour for an Army in which more 'martial' races do the fighting. You are welcome to go on hunger strike or to refuse to take a shit or to kiss your Mummy or whatever. Nobody gives a fuck.
Anyway, as in the First World War, so too in the Second- the British Indian Army didn't do particularly well while the Provinces (which were now autonomous) were corrupt and badly run. Famine had returned while Ethnic Cleansing was now State sponsored. Halifax supported Atlee's 'cut and run' policy. India was a shithole. There was neither profit nor honour to be got from there save for hypocritical followers of the Mahacrackpot.
No comments:
Post a Comment