History of the British Raj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

After the first war for Indian independence, the British Government took over the administration to establish the British Raj.

The British Raj was the period of British rule on the Indian subcontinent between 1858 and 1947. The system of governance was instituted in 1858 when the rule of the East India Company was transferred to The Crown in the person of Queen Victoria.

It lasted until 1947, when the British provinces of India were partitioned into two sovereign dominion states: the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan, leaving the princely states to choose between them. Most of the princely states decided to join either Dominion of India or Dominion of Pakistan, except the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It was only at the last moment that Jammu and Kashmir agreed to sign the "Instrument of Accession" with India. The two new dominions later became the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (the eastern half of which, still later, became the People's Republic of Bangladesh). The province of Burma in the eastern region of the Indian Empire had been made a separate colony in 1937 and became independent in 1948.

The East India Company was an English and later British joint-stock company.[1] It was formed to trade in the Indian Ocean region, initially with Mughal India and the East Indies, and later with Qing China. The company ended up seizing control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent, colonised parts of Southeast Asia, and colonised Hong Kong after a war with Qing China.


Effects on the economy[edit]

In the later half of the 19th century, both the direct administration of India by the British crown and the technological change ushered in by the industrial revolution, had the effect of closely intertwining the economies of India and Great Britain.[2] In fact, many of the major changes in transport and communications (that are typically associated with Crown Rule of India) had already begun before the Mutiny. Since Dalhousie had embraced the technological change then rampant in Great Britain, India too saw rapid development of all those technologies. Railways, roads, canals, and bridges were rapidly built in India and telegraph links equally rapidly established in order that raw materials, such as cotton, from India's hinterland could be transported more efficiently to ports, such as Bombay, for subsequent export to England.[3] Likewise, finished goods from England were transported back just as efficiently, for sale in the rising (burgeoning) Indian markets.[4] However, unlike Britain itself, where the market risks for the infrastructure development were borne by private investors, in India, it was the taxpayers—primarily farmers and farm-labourers—who endured the risks, which, in the end, amounted to £50 million.[5] In spite of these costs, very little skilled employment was created for Indians. By 1920, with a history of 60 years of its construction, only ten per cent of the "superior posts" in the railways were held by Indians.[6]

The rush of technology was also changing the agricultural economy in India: by the last decade of the 19th century, a large fraction of some raw materials—not only cotton, but also some food-grains—were being exported to faraway markets.[7] Consequently, many small farmers, dependent on the whims of those markets, lost land, animals, and equipment to money-lenders.[7] More tellingly, the latter half of the 19th century also saw an increase in the number of large-scale famines in India. Although famines were not new to the subcontinent, these were particularly severe, with tens of millions dying,[8] and with many critics, both British and Indian, laying the blame at the doorsteps of the lumbering colonial administrations.[7]

In terms of the longer lasting effects and legacies of the economic impact of the British Raj, the impact predominantly stems from the irregular investment of areas of infrastructure. Simon Carey explains how the investment into Indian society was 'narrowly focused' and favoured the growth of transportation of goods and workers.[9] Therefore India has since seen an uneven economic development of society. For example, Acemoglu et al. (2001) identify how the inability of certain areas of rural India to cope with disease and famine best explain this uneven development of the nation.[10] Carey also points out that a lasting impact of the British Raj is the transformation of India into an agricultural trading economy.[11] However, since the rise of technology in the latter 20th Century, India has been able to become a leading nation in the production of technology, with companies like the IT company Tata Consultancy service employing 470,000 people spanning over 50 countries, and the Tata Group taking an annual revenue of US$113 billion, making it the largest IT service provider in the world.[12] Therefore, some areas of India, predominantly in affluent urban areas, have benefited from the legacies of the British Raj in the long term due to the transformation of Indian economic culture to a production based economy. However, the majority of Indian society has experienced a negative impact of the British Raj, especially in rural and suburban areas, due to the focus of investment into transport such as railways and canals rather than into healthcare and primary education.[original research?]

Beginnings of self-government[edit]

The first steps were taken toward self-government in British India in the late 19th century with the appointment of Indian counsellors to advise the British viceroy and the establishment of provincial councils with Indian members; the British subsequently widened participation in legislative councils with the Indian Councils Act 1892. Municipal Corporations and District Boards were created for local administration; they included elected Indian members

The Indian Councils Act 1909 – also known as the Morley-Minto Reforms (John Morley was the secretary of state for India, and Gilbert Elliot, fourth earl of Minto, was viceroy) – gave Indians limited roles in the central and provincial legislatures, known as legislative councils. Indians had previously been appointed to legislative councils, but after the reforms some were elected to them. At the centre, the majority of council members continued to be government-appointed officials, and the viceroy was in no way responsible to the legislature. At the provincial level, the elected members, together with unofficial appointees, outnumbered the appointed officials, but responsibility of the governor to the legislature was not contemplated. Morley made it clear in introducing the legislation to the British Parliament that parliamentary self-government was not the goal of the British government.

The Morley-Minto Reforms were a milestone. Step by step, the elective principle was introduced for membership in Indian legislative councils. The "electorate" was limited, however, to a small group of upper-class Indians. These elected members increasingly became an "opposition" to the "official government". The Communal electorates were later extended to other communities and made a political factor of the Indian tendency toward group identification through religion.

World War I and its causes[edit]

World War I would prove to be a watershed in the imperial relationship between Britain and India. 1.4 million Indian and British soldiers of the British Indian Army would take part in the war and their participation would have a wider cultural fallout: news of Indian soldiers fighting and dying with British soldiers, as well as soldiers from dominions like Canada,Australia and New Zealand, would travel to distant corners of the world both in newsprint and by the new medium of the radio.[13] India's international profile would thereby rise and would continue to rise during the 1920s.[13] It was to lead, among other things, to India, under its own name, becoming a founding member of the League of Nations in 1920 and participating, under the name, "Les Indes Anglaises" (The British Indies), in the 1920 Summer Olympics in Antwerp.[14] Back in India, especially among the leaders of the Indian National Congress, it would lead to calls for greater self-government for Indians.[13]

In 1916, in the face of new strength demonstrated by the nationalists with the signing of the Lucknow Pact and the founding of the Home Rule leagues, and the realisation, after the disaster in the Mesopotamian campaign, that the war would likely last longer, the new Viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, cautioned that the Government of India needed to be more responsive to Indian opinion.[15] Towards the end of the year, after discussions with the government in London, he suggested that the British demonstrate their good faith – in light of the Indian war role – through a number of public actions, including awards of titles and honours to princes, granting of commissions in the army to Indians, and removal of the much-reviled cotton excise duty, but most importantly, an announcement of Britain's future plans for India and an indication of some concrete steps.[15] After more discussion, in August 1917, the new Liberal Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, announced the British aim of "increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration, and the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire."[15] This envisioned reposing confidence in the educated Indians, so far disdained as an unrepresentative minority, who were described by Montague as "Intellectually our children".[16] The pace of the reforms where to be determined by Britain as and when the Indians were seen to have earned it.[16] However, although the plan envisioned limited self-government at first only in the provinces – with India emphatically within the British Empire – it represented the first British proposal for any form of representative government in a non-white colony.

Earlier, at the onset of World War I, the reassignment of most of the British army in India to Europe and Mesopotamia had led the previous Viceroy, Lord Harding, to worry about the "risks involved in denuding India of troops."[13] Revolutionary violence had already been a concern in British India; consequently in 1915, to strengthen its powers during what it saw was a time of increased vulnerability, the Government of India passed the Defence of India Act, which allowed it to intern politically dangerous dissidents without due process and added to the power it already had – under the 1910 Press Act – both to imprison journalists without trial and to censor the press.[17] Now, as constitutional reform began to be discussed in earnest, the British began to consider how new moderate Indians could be brought into the fold of constitutional politics and simultaneously, how the hand of established constitutionalists could be strengthened.[17] However, since the reform plan was devised during a time when extremist violence had ebbed as a result of increased wartime governmental control and it now feared a revival of revolutionary violence,[16] the government also began to consider how some of its wartime powers could be extended into peacetime.[17]

Edwin Montagu, left, the Secretary of State for India, whose report led to the Government of India Act 1919, also known as the Montford Reforms or the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms.

Consequently, in 1917, even as Edwin Montagu announced the new constitutional reforms, a sedition committee chaired by a British judge, Mr. S. A. T. Rowlatt, was tasked with investigating wartime revolutionary conspiracies and the German and Bolshevik links to the violence in India,[18][19][20] with the unstated goal of extending the government's wartime powers.[15] The Rowlatt committee presented its report in July 1918 and identified three regions of conspiratorial insurgency: Bengal, the Bombay presidency, and the Punjab.[15] To combat subversive acts in these regions, the committee recommended that the government use emergency powers akin to its wartime authority, which included the ability to try cases of sedition by a panel of three judges and without juries, exaction of securities from suspects, governmental overseeing of residences of suspects,[15] and the power for provincial governments to arrest and detain suspects in short-term detention facilities and without trial.[21]

With the end of World War I, there was also a change in the economic climate. By year's end 1919, 1.5 million Indians had served in the armed services in either combatant or non-combatant roles, and India had provided £146 million in revenue for the war.[22] The increased taxes coupled with disruptions in both domestic and international trade had the effect of approximately doubling the index of overall prices in India between 1914 and 1920.[22] Returning war veterans, especially in the Punjab, created a growing unemployment crisis[23] and post-war inflation led to food riots in Bombay, Madras, and Bengal provinces,[23] a situation that was made only worse by the failure of the 1918–19 monsoon and by profiteering and speculation.[22] The global influenza epidemic and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 added to the general jitters; the former among the population already experiencing economic woes,[23] and the latter among government officials, fearing a similar revolution in India.[24]

To combat what it saw as a coming crisis, the government now drafted the Rowlatt committee's recommendations into two Rowlatt Bills.[21] Although the bills were authorised for legislative consideration by Edwin Montagu, they were done so unwillingly, with the accompanying declaration, "I loathe the suggestion at first sight of preserving the Defence of India Act in peace time to such an extent as Rowlatt and his friends think necessary."[15] In the ensuing discussion and vote in the Imperial Legislative Council, all Indian members voiced opposition to the bills. The Government of India was nevertheless able to use of its "official majority" to ensure passage of the bills early in 1919.[15] However, what it passed, in deference to the Indian opposition, was a lesser version of the first bill, which now allowed extrajudicial powers, but for a period of exactly three years and for the prosecution solely of "anarchical and revolutionary movements," dropping entirely the second bill involving modification of the Indian Penal Code.[15] Even so, when it was passed the new Rowlatt Act aroused widespread indignation throughout India and brought Mohandas Gandhi to the forefront of the nationalist movement.[21]

Montagu–Chelmsford Report 1919[edit]

Meanwhile, Montagu and Chelmsford themselves finally presented their report in July 1918 after a long fact-finding trip through India the previous winter.[25] After more discussion by the government and parliament in Britain, and another tour by the Franchise and Functions Committee for the purpose of identifying who among the Indian population could vote in future elections, the Government of India Act 1919 (also known as the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms) was passed in December 1919.[25] The new Act enlarged the provincial councils and converted the Imperial Legislative Council into an enlarged Central Legislative Assembly. It also repealed the Government of India's recourse to the "official majority" in unfavourable votes.[25] Although departments like defence, foreign affairs, criminal law, communications and income-tax were retained by the Viceroy and the central government in New Delhi, other departments like public health, education, land-revenue and local self-government were transferred to the provinces.[25] The provinces themselves were now to be administered under a new dyarchical system, whereby some areas like education, agriculture, infrastructure development, and local self-government became the preserve of Indian ministers and legislatures, and ultimately the Indian electorates, while others like irrigation, land-revenue, police, prisons, and control of media remained within the purview of the British governor and his executive council.[25] The new Act also made it easier for Indians to be admitted into the civil service and the army officer corps.

A greater number of Indians were now enfranchised, although, for voting at the national level, they constituted only 10% of the total adult male population, many of whom were still illiterate.[25] In the provincial legislatures, the British continued to exercise some control by setting aside seats for special interests they considered cooperative or useful. In particular, rural candidates, generally sympathetic to British rule and less confrontational, were assigned more seats than their urban counterparts.[25] Seats were also reserved for non-Brahmins, landowners, businessmen, and college graduates. The principal of "communal representation", an integral part of the Minto–Morley Reforms, and more recently of the Congress-Muslim League Lucknow Pact, was reaffirmed, with seats being reserved for Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, and domiciled Europeans, in both provincial and Imperial legislative councils.[25] The Montagu–Chelmsford reforms offered Indians the most significant opportunity yet for exercising legislative power, especially at the provincial level; however, that opportunity was also restricted by the still limited number of eligible voters, by the small budgets available to provincial legislatures, and by the presence of rural and special interest seats that were seen as instruments of British control.[25]

British Prime Minister MacDonald to the right of Gandhi at the Second Round Table Conference in London, October 1931.

Round Table Conferences 1930–31–32[edit]

The three Round Table Conferences of 1930–32 were a series of conferences organised by the British Government to discuss constitutional reforms in India. They were conducted according to the recommendation of Muslim leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Viceroy Lord Irwin and the Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald,[26][27] and by the report submitted by the Simon Commission in May 1930. Demands for swaraj, or self-rule, in India had been growing increasingly strong. By the 1930s, many British politicians believed that India needed to move towards dominion status. However, there were significant disagreements between the Indian and the British leaders that the Conferences could not resolve.[28]

A cartoon from 1932 depicting Viscount Willingdon on a hunger strike against Gandhi

Willingdon imprisons leaders of Congress[edit]

In 1932 the Viceroy, Lord Willingdon, after the failure of the three Round Table Conferences (India) in London, now confronted Gandhi's Congress in action. The India Office told Willingdon that he should conciliate only those elements of Indian opinion that were willing to work with the Raj. That did not include Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, which launched its Civil Disobedience Movement on 4 January 1932. Therefore, Willingdon took decisive action.[29] He imprisoned Gandhi. He outlawed the Congress; he rounded up all members of the Working Committee and the Provincial Committees and imprisoned them; and he banned Congress youth organisations. In total he imprisoned 80,000 Indian activists. Without most of their leaders, protests were uneven and disorganised, boycotts were ineffective, illegal youth organisations proliferated but were ineffective, more women became involved, and there was terrorism, especially in the North-West Frontier Province. Gandhi remained in prison until 1933.[30][31] Willingdon relied on his military secretary, Hastings Ismay, for his personal safety.[32]

Communal Award: 1932[edit]

MacDonald, trying to resolve the critical issue of how Indians would be represented, on 4 August 1932 granting separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, and Europeans in India and increased the number of provinces that offered separate electorates to Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians. Untouchables (now known as the Dalits) obtained a separate electorate. That outraged Gandhi because he firmly believed they had to be treated as Hindus. He and Congress rejected the proposal, but it went into effect anyway.[33]

Government of India Act (1935)[edit]

In 1935, after the failure of the Round Table Conferences, the British Parliament approved the Government of India Act 1935, which authorized the establishment of independent legislative assemblies in all provinces of British India, the creation of a central government incorporating both the British provinces and the princely states, and the protection of Muslim minorities.[4] The future Constitution of independent India would owe a great deal to the text of this act.[34] The act also provided for a bicameral national parliament and an executive branch under the purview of the British government. Although the national federation was never realized, nationwide elections for provincial assemblies were held in 1937. Despite initial hesitation, the Congress took part in the elections and won victories in seven of the eleven provinces of British India,[35] and Congress governments, with wide powers, were formed in these provinces. In Great Britain, these victories were to later turn the tide for the idea of Indian independence.[35]

World War II[edit]

India played a major role in the Allied war effort against both Japan and Germany. It provided over 2 million soldiers, who fought numerous campaigns in the Middle East, and in the India-Burma front and also supplied billions of pounds to the British war effort. The Muslim and Sikh populations were strongly supportive of the British war effort, but the Hindu population was divided. Congress opposed the war, and tens of thousands of its leaders were imprisoned in 1942–45.[36][37][38] A major famine in eastern India led to hundreds of thousands of deaths by starvation, and remains a highly controversial issue regarding Churchill's reluctance to provide emergency food relief.[39]

With the outbreak of World War II in 1939, the viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, declared war on India's behalf without consulting Indian leaders, leading the Congress provincial ministries to resign in protest. The Muslim League, in contrast, supported Britain in the war effort; however, it now took the view that Muslims would be unfairly treated in an independent India dominated by the Congress. Hindus not affiliated with the Congress typically supported the war. The two major Sikh factions, the Unionists and the Akali Dal, supported Britain and successfully urged large numbers of Sikhs to volunteer for the army.[40]

Quit India movement or the Bharat Chhodo Andolan[edit]

The British sent a high level Cripps Mission in 1942 to secure Indian nationalists' co-operation in the war effort in exchange for postwar independence and dominion status. Congress demanded immediate independence and the mission failed. Gandhi then launched the Quit India Movement in August 1942, demanding the immediate withdrawal of the British from India or face nationwide civil disobedience. Along with thousands of other Congress leaders, Gandhi was immediately imprisoned, and the country erupted in violent local episodes led by students and later by peasant political groups, especially in Eastern United Provinces, Bihar, and western Bengal. According to John F. Riddick, from 9 August 1942 to 21 September 1942, the Quit India movement:

attacked 550 post offices, 250 railway stations, damaged many rail lines, destroyed 70 police stations, and burned or damaged 85 other government buildings. There were about 2,500 instances of telegraph wires being cut....The Government of India deployed 57 battalions of British troops to restore order.[41]

The police and Army crushed the resistance in a little more than six weeks; nationalist leaders were imprisoned for the duration.[42]

Bose and the Indian National Army (INA)[edit]

Subhas Chandra Bose, who had been ousted from the Congress Party in 1939 following differences with the more conservative high command,[43] turned to Germany and Japan for help with liberating India by force.[44] With Japanese support, he organised the Indian National Army, composed largely of Indian soldiers of the British Indian army who had been captured at Singapore by the Japanese, including many Sikhs as well as Hindus and Muslims. Japan's secret service had promoted unrest in Southeast Asia to destabilise the British war effort,[45] and came to support a number of puppet and provisional governments in regions under their occupation, such as those of Burma, the Philippines and Vietnam; similarly supported was the Provisional Government of Azad Hind (Free India), presided over by Bose.[46][44] Bose's effort, however, was short lived; after the reverses of 1944, the reinforced British Indian Army in 1945 first halted and then reversed the Japanese U Go offensive, beginning the successful part of the Burma Campaign. Bose's Indian National Army surrendered with the recapture of Singapore; Bose died in a plane crash soon thereafter. The British demanded trials for INA officers, but public opinion—including Congress and even the Indian Army—saw the INA as fighting for Indian independence and demanded a termination. Yasmin Khan says "The INA became the real heroes of the war in India." After a wave of unrest and nationalist violence the trials were stopped.[47][48][49][50]


Britain borrowed everywhere it could and made heavy purchases of munitions and supplies in India during the war.[51] Previously India owed Britain large sums; now it was reversed.[52] Britain's sterling balances around the world amounted to £3.4 billion in 1945; India's share was £1.3 billion (equivalent to $US 74 billion in 2016 dollars.)[53][54] In this way the Raj treasury accumulated very large sterling reserves of British pounds that was owed to it by the British treasury. However, Britain treated this as a long-term loan with no interest and no specified repayment date. Just when the money would be made available by London was an issue, for the British treasury was nearly empty by 1945. India's balances totalled to Rs. 17.24 billion in March 1946; of that sum Rs. 15.12 billion [£1.134 billion] was split between India and Pakistan when they became independent in August 1947. They finally got the money and India spent all its share by 1957; mostly buying back British owned assets in India.[55]

Transfer of Power[edit]

1909 Prevailing Religions, Map of British Indian Empire, 1909, showing the prevailing majority religions of the population for different districts.

The All India Azad Muslim Conference gathered in Delhi in April 1940 to voice its support for an independent and united India.[56] Its members included several Islamic organisations in India, as well as 1400 nationalist Muslim delegates.[57][58][59] The pro-separatist All-India Muslim League worked to try to silence those nationalist Muslims who stood against the partition of India, often using "intimidation and coercion".[59][58] The murder of the All India Azad Muslim Conference leader Allah Bakhsh Soomro also made it easier for the All-India Muslim League to demand the creation of a Pakistan.[59]

In January 1946, a number of mutinies broke out in the armed services, starting with that of RAF servicemen frustrated with their slow repatriation to Britain.[60] The mutinies came to a head with mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy in Bombay in February 1946, followed by others in Calcutta, Madras, and Karachi. Although the mutinies were rapidly suppressed, they found much public support in India and had the effect of spurring the new Labour government in Britain to action, and leading to the Cabinet Mission to India led by the Secretary of State for India, Lord Pethick Lawrence, and including Sir Stafford Cripps, who had visited four years before.[60]

Also in early 1946, new elections were called in India in which the Congress won electoral victories in eight of the eleven provinces.[61] The negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League, however, stumbled over the issue of the partition. Jinnah proclaimed 16 August 1946, Direct Action Day, with the stated goal of highlighting, peacefully, the demand for a Muslim homeland in British India. The following day Hindu-Muslim riots broke out in Calcutta and quickly spread throughout India. Although the Government of India and the Congress were both shaken by the course of events, in September, a Congress-led interim government was installed, with Jawaharlal Nehru as united India's prime minister.

Later that year, the Labour government in Britain, its exchequer exhausted by the recently concluded World War II, decided to end British rule of India, and in early 1947 Britain announced its intention of transferring power no later than June 1948.

As independence approached, the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the provinces of Punjab and Bengal continued unabated. With the British army unprepared for the potential for increased violence, the new viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, advanced the date for the transfer of power, allowing less than six months for a mutually agreed plan for independence. In June 1947, the nationalist leaders, including Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad on behalf of the Congress, Jinnah representing the pro-separatist Muslim League, B. R. Ambedkar representing the Untouchable community, and Master Tara Singh representing the Sikhs, agreed to a partition of the country along religious lines. The predominantly Hindu and Sikh areas were assigned to the new India and predominantly Muslim areas to the new nation of Pakistan; the plan included a partition of the Muslim-majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal. In the years leading up to the partition of India, the pro-separatist All-India Muslim League violently drove out Hindus and Sikhs from the western Punjab.[62]

Many millions of Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu refugees trekked across the newly drawn borders. In Punjab, where the new border lines divided the Sikh regions in half, massive bloodshed followed; in Bengal and Bihar, where Gandhi's presence assuaged communal tempers, the violence was more limited. In all, anywhere between 250,000 and 500,000 people on both sides of the new borders died in the violence.[63] On 14 August 1947, the new Dominion of Pakistan came into being, with Muhammad Ali Jinnah sworn in as its first Governor General in Karachi. The following day, 15 August 1947, India, now a smaller Union of India, became an independent country with official ceremonies taking place in New Delhi, and with Jawaharlal Nehru assuming the office of the prime minister, and the viceroy, Louis Mountbatten, staying on as its first Governor General.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ The Dutch East India Company was the first to issue public stock.
  2. ^ (Stein 2001, p. 259), (Oldenburg 2007)
  3. ^ (Oldenburg 2007), (Stein 2001, p. 258)
  4. ^ a b (Oldenburg 2007)
  5. ^ (Stein 2001, p. 258)
  6. ^ (Stein 2001, p. 159)
  7. ^ a b c (Stein 2001, p. 260)
  8. ^ (Bose & Jalal 2003, p. 117)
  9. ^ Carey 2012
  10. ^ Acemoglu, Johnson & Robinson 2001
  11. ^ Carey 2012
  12. ^ Overby 2019
  13. ^ a b c d Brown 1994, pp. 197–198
  14. ^ Olympic Games Antwerp 1920: Official Report Archived 5 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Nombre de bations representees, p. 168. Quote: "31 Nations avaient accepté l'invitation du Comité Olympique Belge:... la Grèce – la Hollande Les Indes Anglaises – l'Italie – le Japon ..."
  15. ^ a b c d e f g h i Brown 1994, pp. 203–204
  16. ^ a b c Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, p. 166
  17. ^ a b c Brown 1994, pp. 201–203
  18. ^ Lovett 1920, pp. 94, 187–191
  19. ^ Sarkar 1921, p. 137
  20. ^ Tinker 1968, p. 92
  21. ^ a b c Spear 1990, p. 190
  22. ^ a b c Brown 1994, pp. 195–196
  23. ^ a b c Stein 2001, p. 304
  24. ^ Ludden 2002, p. 208
  25. ^ a b c d e f g h i Brown 1994, pp. 205–207
  26. ^ Wolpert, Stanley (2013). Jinnah of Pakistan (15 ed.). Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-19-577389-7.
  27. ^ Wolpert, Stanley (2012). Shameful Flight (1st ed.). Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-19-906606-3.
  28. ^ Hoiberg, Dale (2000). Students' Britannica India. p. 309. ISBN 9780852297605.
  29. ^ John F. Riddick (2006). The History of British India: A Chronology. Greenwood. p. 110. ISBN 9780313322808.
  30. ^ Brian Roger Tomlinson, The Indian National Congress and the Raj, 1929–1942: the penultimate phase (Springer, 1976).
  31. ^ Rosemary Rees. India 1900–47 (Heineman, 2006) p 122
  32. ^ Ismay, Hastings (1960). The Memoirs of General Lord Ismay. New York: Viking Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-8371-6280-5.
  33. ^ Helen M. Nugent, "The communal award: The process of decision‐making." South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 2#1–2 (1979): 112–129.
  34. ^ (Low 1993, pp. 40, 156)
  35. ^ a b (Low 1993, p. 154)
  36. ^ Srinath Raghavan, India's War: World War II and the Making of Modern South Asia (2016).
  37. ^ Yasmin Khan, India At War: The Subcontinent and the Second World War (2015).
  38. ^ Lawrence James, Raj: the making and remaking of British India (1997) pp 545–85
  39. ^ Madhusree Mukerjee, Churchill's Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of India during World War II (2010).
  40. ^ Robin Jeffrey (2016). What's Happening to India?: Punjab, Ethnic Conflict, and the Test for Federalism. Springer. pp. 68–69. ISBN 9781349234103.
  41. ^ John F. Riddick, The History of British India: A Chronology (2006) p 115
  42. ^ Srinath Raghavan, India's War: World War II and the Making of Modern South Asia (2016) pp 233–75.
  43. ^ Chaudhuri 1953, p. 355
  44. ^ a b Low 1993, p. 31
  45. ^ Lebra 1977, p. 23
  46. ^ Lebra 1977, p. 31
  47. ^ Khan, Raj at War pp 304–5.
  48. ^ Chaudhuri 1953, p. 349
  49. ^ Sarkar 1983, p. 411
  50. ^ Hyam 2007, p. 115
  51. ^ Dharma Kumar, ed., The Cambridge Economic History of India: Volume 2, c.1751–c.1970 Edited by Dharma Kumar, The Cambridge Economic History of India The Cambridge Economic History of India Volume 2, c. 1751–c. 1970 (1983) pp 640–42, 942–44.
  52. ^ Srinath Raghavan, India's War: World War II and the Making of Modern South Asia (2016) pp 339–47.
  53. ^ See "Pounds Sterling to Dollars: Historical Conversion of Currency"
  54. ^ Marcelo de Paiva Abreu, "India as a creditor: sterling balances, 1940–1953." (Department of Economics, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, 2015) online
  55. ^ Uma Kapila (2005). Indian Economy. Academic Foundation. p. 23. ISBN 9788171884292.
  56. ^ Qasmi, Ali Usman; Robb, Megan Eaton (2017). Muslims against the Muslim League: Critiques of the Idea of Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 9781108621236.
  57. ^ Haq, Mushir U. (1970). Muslim politics in modern India, 1857-1947. Meenakshi Prakashan. p. 114. This was also reflected in one of the resolutions of the Azad Muslim Conference, an organization which attempted to be representative of all the various nationalist Muslim parties and groups in India.
  58. ^ a b Ahmed, Ishtiaq (27 May 2016). "The dissenters". The Friday Times. However, the book is a tribute to the role of one Muslim leader who steadfastly opposed the Partition of India: the Sindhi leader Allah Bakhsh Soomro. Allah Bakhsh belonged to a landed family. He founded the Sindh People’s Party in 1934, which later came to be known as ‘Ittehad’ or ‘Unity Party’. ... Allah Bakhsh was totally opposed to the Muslim League’s demand for the creation of Pakistan through a division of India on a religious basis. Consequently, he established the Azad Muslim Conference. In its Delhi session held during April 27–30, 1940 some 1400 delegates took part. They belonged mainly to the lower castes and working class. The famous scholar of Indian Islam, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, feels that the delegates represented a ‘majority of India’s Muslims’. Among those who attended the conference were representatives of many Islamic theologians and women also took part in the deliberations ... Shamsul Islam argues that the All-India Muslim League at times used intimidation and coercion to silence any opposition among Muslims to its demand for Partition. He calls such tactics of the Muslim League as a ‘Reign of Terror’. He gives examples from all over India including the NWFP where the Khudai Khidmatgars remain opposed to the Partition of India.
  59. ^ a b c Ali, Afsar (17 July 2017). "Partition of India and Patriotism of Indian Muslims". The Milli Gazette.
  60. ^ a b (Judd 2004, pp. 172–173)
  61. ^ (Judd 2004, p. 172)
  62. ^ Abid, Abdul Majeed (29 December 2014). "The forgotten massacre". The Nation. On the same dates, Muslim League-led mobs fell with determination and full preparations on the helpless Hindus and Sikhs scattered in the villages of Multan, Rawalpindi, Campbellpur, Jhelum and Sargodha. The murderous mobs were well supplied with arms, such as daggers, swords, spears and fire-arms. (A former civil servant mentioned in his autobiography that weapon supplies had been sent from NWFP and money was supplied by Delhi-based politicians.) They had bands of stabbers and their auxiliaries, who covered the assailant, ambushed the victim and if necessary disposed of his body. These bands were subsidized monetarily by the Muslim League, and cash payments were made to individual assassins based on the numbers of Hindus and Sikhs killed. There were also regular patrolling parties in jeeps which went about sniping and picking off any stray Hindu or Sikh. ... Thousands of non-combatants including women and children were killed or injured by mobs, supported by the All India Muslim League.
  63. ^ (Khosla 2001, p. 299)

Surveys and reference books[edit]

Monographs and collections[edit]

  • Bayly, C. A. (1990), Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 248, ISBN 0-521-38650-0.
  • Bayly, C. A. (2000), Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India, 1780–1870 (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 426, ISBN 0-521-66360-1
  • Brown, Judith M.; Louis, Wm. Roger, eds. (2001), Oxford History of the British Empire: The Twentieth Century, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 800, ISBN 0-19-924679-3
  • Chandavarkar, Rajnarayan (1998), Imperial Power and Popular Politics: Class, Resistance and the State in India, 1850–1950, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 400, ISBN 0-521-59692-0.
  • Copland, Ian (2002), Princes of India in the Endgame of Empire, 1917–1947, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History & Society). Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 316, ISBN 0-521-89436-0.
  • Gilmartin, David. 1988. Empire and Islam: Punjab and the Making of Pakistan. Berkeley: University of California Press. 258 pages. ISBN 0-520-06249-3.
  • Gould, William (2004), Hindu Nationalism and the Language of Politics in Late Colonial India, (Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society). Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 320, ISBN 0-521-83061-3.
  • Hyam, Ronald (2007), Britain's Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation 1918–1968., Cambridge University Press., ISBN 978-0-521-86649-1.
  • Jalal, Ayesha (1993), The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 334 pages, ISBN 0-521-45850-1.
  • Khan, Yasmin (2007), The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 250 pages, ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3
  • Khosla, G. D. (2001), "Stern Reckoning", in Page, David; Inder Singh, Anita; Moon, Penderal; Khosla, G. D.; Hasan, Mushirul (eds.), The Partition Omnibus: Prelude to Partition/the Origins of the Partition of India 1936-1947/Divide and Quit/Stern Reckoning, Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-565850-7
  • Lebra, Joyce C. (1977), Japanese Trained Armies in South-East Asia, Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-231-03995-6
  • Low, D. A. (1993), Eclipse of Empire, Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xvi, 366, ISBN 0-521-45754-8.
  • Low, D. A. (2002), Britain and Indian Nationalism: The Imprint of Amibiguity 1929–1942, Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 374, ISBN 0-521-89261-9.
  • Low, D. A., ed. (2004) [1977], Congress & the Raj: Facets of the Indian Struggle 1917–47, New Delhi and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. xviii, 513, ISBN 0-19-568367-6.
  • Metcalf, Thomas R. (1991), The Aftermath of Revolt: India, 1857–1870, Riverdale Co. Pub. Pp. 352, ISBN 81-85054-99-1
  • Metcalf, Thomas R. (1997), Ideologies of the Raj, Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press, Pp. 256, ISBN 0-521-58937-1
  • Porter, Andrew, ed. (2001), Oxford History of the British Empire: Nineteenth Century, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 800, ISBN 0-19-924678-5
  • Ramusack, Barbara (2004), The Indian Princes and their States (The New Cambridge History of India), Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 324, ISBN 0-521-03989-4
  • Shaikh, Farzana. 1989. Community and Consensus in Islam: Muslim Representation in Colonial India, 1860—1947. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 272 pages. ISBN 0-521-36328-4.
  • Wainwright, A. Martin (1993), Inheritance of Empire: Britain, India, and the Balance of Power in Asia, 1938–55, Praeger Publishers. Pp. xvi, 256, ISBN 0-275-94733-5.
  • Wolpert, Stanley (2006), Shameful Flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 272, ISBN 0-19-515198-4.

Articles in journals or collections[edit]

Classic Histories and Gazetteers[edit]

  • Imperial Gazetteer of India vol. IV (1907), The Indian Empire, Administrative, Published under the authority of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council, Oxford at the Clarendon Press. Pp. xxx, 1 map, 552.
  • Lovett, Sir Verney (1920), A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement, New York, Frederick A. Stokes Company, ISBN 81-7536-249-9
  • Majumdar, R. C.; Raychaudhuri, H. C.; Datta, Kalikinkar (1950), An Advanced History of India, London: Macmillan and Company Limited. 2nd edition. Pp. xiii, 1122, 7 maps, 5 coloured maps..
  • Smith, Vincent A. (1921), India in the British Period: Being Part III of the Oxford History of India, Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. 2nd edition. Pp. xxiv, 316 (469–784).

Tertiary Sources[edit]

External links[edit]