Omegonthesane wrote:DS - I've seen you go on about how India got its independence by if not straight up revolt than certainly by way the fuck more violence than I ever got taught about at school. Got any sources for that?
This isn't me doubting you, it's me wanting to learn more.
I'm not sure that is how I would phrase it myself. Ultimately, India's independence was a peaceful transfer of power (at least as far as the British were concerned).
So, Britain unilaterally entered India into WW2, which was not at all surprising but still wildly controversial. Britain really, really wanted Indian leadership on board with the war effort, for obvious reasons. Indian leadership really, really wanted a promise of post-war independence, and for the most part
also wanted to cooperate with the war effort. Britain sent a dude named Cripps to negotiate a deal over top of Viceroy Linlithgow's head, because Linlithgow was a reviled douchenozzle, but ultimately Cripps could not end up committing to promises of independence and instead made some wishy-washy promises of slightly more post-war autonomy and a vague outline of an eventual path to independence. The negotiations resolved fuck all, and their failure gave birth to the Quit India Movement, which was
supposed to be a mass nonviolent protest demanding an immediate British withdrawal from India. Anyway, Gandhi gives a big speech to kick the whole thing off, and
of course by the end of the day everyone of any importance whatsoever to the Indian Independence Movement was in prison.
Thus far, none of this shit is particularly controversial. I've name-dropped things, if you google those things they will have wikipedia pages, the pages are accurate enough, whatever, this is the boring shit no one argues about. The question that is difficult to answer is "how bad did things get when the British rounded up all the Indian leaders they could get their hands on and throw them in prison?" And the answer is I'm not sure anyone knows exactly question mark? Britain spent the war working very hard to make sure Indians did not realize how uppity other Indians were being, and there really weren't any Indian leaders who'd want to brag about how pockets of their supporters helped sabotage the allied war effort. They weren't exactly fans of the Axis powers before they ended up in prison and by the time they were out the allies had already won - bragging about how much harder you'd made that for them wasn't exactly politically expedient. It's somewhat similar to the situation with the French Resistance - a lot of the literature on the subject is still just the propaganda we told ourselves during and immediately after the war, and as such is of dubious usefulness.
The
Battle of Christmas Island was a real battle with zero casualties, because by the time the Japanese showed up Indian forces had already mutinied and killed or captured their British officers. The
Indian National Army was a real army. A former head of the Indian National Congress named Bose really did flee India to Germany, find his way to Japan, and put together a small army of Indian expatriates for the purposes of helping Japan fight Britain in Southeast Asia. The goal was to eventually make their way into India and inspire mass defections among the British-Indian army. After the war ended and Britain started putting officers of the INA on trial for treason, there definitely was a
mass mutiny-slash-lite-revolt. It was mostly - but not completely - nonviolent.
This shit's all well-documented, and I don't think I need to "prove it" beyond "here's some things to read about if you want." Events like that certainly help paint the picture of a country teetering on the edge of something very, very serious. The part I am not super confident about - and the part you're probably most interested in - is the extent of the unrest in India following the British crackdown. For example, if you go to the Wikipedia article on the Quit India Movement, you'll see this gem: "For several weeks there was widespread rioting and the British lost control in some parts of the country.[citation needed] Only the strongest measures, including the use of machine guns and aerial bombing, restored their rule – at the cost of thousands of Indian lives.[citation needed]" That shit is hilarious. That reads exactly like the sort of bullshit various flavors of nationalist add to wikipedia entries so they can jerk off to them, and the [citation needed] makes it even better. No way that shit's true, right? Well, here's some newspaper excerpts from 1942:
The Mercury, August 31st 1942 wrote:UNREST IN INDIA
NEW DELHI, Sunday
...
Sixteen were injured when police at Benares drove off a crowd of 1000 which attempted to attack the railway and police stations.
One person was killed and three injured when police at Brindaban, near Lucknow, fired on a violent mob which attacked the police station.
Two persons were killed when police in Bihar Province fired on a mob which was wrecking the railway station. Four persons were killed and three injured when crowds in the neighbouring area attempted to cut the railway embankment. Troops fired on demonstrators at Paru police station. Bihar. Two persons were killed and three injured."
...
The West Australian, November 16th 1942 wrote:UNREST IN INDIA
Rioting, Looting, Terrorism
Bombay, November 15th
...
A band of 1,000 rioters looted 3 rice mills at Tenkast in the Madras Province. Terrorist gangs are destroying property and creating alarm in the Surat district in Bombay Province. Police raided a building in the heart of Bombay and seized a congress radio which had been broadcasting regular programmes for weeks.
...
Yeah, I am inclined to say that shit got real bad in India following the crackdown. People were writing about the riots in India months later, and it's clear they were targeting British supply lines and clashing with law enforcement.
It is also worth remembering that Cripps was sent to negotiate Indians down from post-war independence, and yet by the time the war ended the British had basically already given up continuing to hold India. Whatever the fuck happened during the war
when all of India's political leadership was in prison is the straw that broke the camel's back and ultimately convinced Britain that India could not be governed without its consent.