Abstract
In 1942, at the time Clement Attlee presents that memorandum on "The Indian political situation" as Lord Privy Seal for the War Cabinet, the British Empire was well entangled in its Second World War, a little more than twenty years after the previous one.
(...)
This memorandum is most problematic, since it tackles, in rather veiled sometimes contradictory terms, a very complicated situation, made even more muddled by the war.
Extract
[...] Attlee seems to keep in mind that such conflict plays an essential role in grooming the desire for autonomy, as the First World War had already been a proof of. "The increasingly large contribution in blood and tears and sweat made by Indians will not be forgotten and will be fully exploited by Indians who have not themselves contributed" he writes (l.16-17), acknowledging the legitimacy of Indians' claims towards self-rule considering their sacrifice in both wars, which also encompasses in a concealed way the severe repression of Indian protests against the British power. [...]
[...] History of the Indian National Congress - 1885-1918 (Vol. I.). New Dehli, Vikas Publishing House Porter B. (1996). The Lion's Share: A short history of British Imperialism, 1850-1995 (3rd ed.). London, Longman Tharoor S. (2016). An Era of Darkness: The British Empire in India. [...]
[...] Clement Atlee's stance on India, as it is displayed in that memorandum, ensued upon the Cripps's mission a month later in an effort to soften relations between the discontented Indian political leaders and the English Rule. The mission proved to be a failure for Cripps, whose efforts were not backed by Linlithgow or Churchill, but paved the way towards the notion of India's independence among its advocates. Both that memorandum and that mission are a token of a British power trying desperately to maintain some influence over a territory that years of repression made impervious to such belated concessions. [...]
[...] It is also precisely for that reason that he insists at length upon what was bequeathed to India by the United Kingdom, that is, in his opinion, "British principles of justice and liberty." (l. 34) This is, in his eye, the "principles of democracy and liberty which puts us in the position of being able to appeal to them take part with us in the common struggle." (l. 37-38), which makes clear that for him winning the war is a more pressing matter than just repressing India's yearnings for self-government. It is important to remark that the veracity the claim that "educated Indians" are accepting of "British principles of justice and liberty" (l. [...]
[...] That split inside the Congress is particularly interesting as Attlee seems to allude to such a possibility in the context of the war. His main worry, which seems a bit paradoxical and displays an obvious lack of power, seems to make sure India will not turn against the British Crown. Signs of a new world order, that dates back, according to him, to "the defeat of Russia by Japan at the beginning of the century" in which the European powers would not be as dominant as they were, require for him the necessary compromises. [...]
