Montagu’s August 1917 Declaration: A Turning Point in British-Indian Relations

This approach aimed to introduce a measure of responsibility to the executive but with significant limitations. The British intended to retain control over critical areas and decisions, limiting the extent of self-governance that Indian representatives could exercise. The August Declaration, therefore, brought a rhetorical shift towards a promise of increased Indian participation in governance but, in practice, maintained significant British control and limited the scope of real self-government for India.

Developments

Shift in British Stance: The August Declaration of 1917, made by Edwin Montagu, indeed marked a significant shift in British policy towards India. 

• It represented a crucial milestone in acknowledging the Indian desire for self-governance and marked a departure from the earlier stance that reforms were not intended to grant self-government.
• Term ‘Responsible Government’ Used: The Declaration recognized the necessity of an increasing involvement of Indians in administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions. 
• • It aimed for the progressive realization of responsible government in India, forming an integral part of the British Empire. 
  • The use of the term ‘responsible government’ implied the accountability of rulers to elected representatives, not solely to the imperial government in London.
• Use of Dyarchy by the British: It was evident that the British administration did not intend to relinquish power to predominantly elected Indian legislatures with a majority. Instead, the concept of ‘dyarchy’ was introduced to address this. 
  • Dyarchy involved a dual form of governance, where certain areas of administration were under Indian ministers, giving them a limited degree of responsibility, while other areas remained under the control of British officials.

Indian Grievance

Indian leaders raised two primary objections to Montagu’s statement:

• Lack of a Specific Time Frame: Indian leaders were discontented due to the absence of a specific timeline or deadline within Montagu’s statement. The plan outlined by Montagu did not provide a clear and defined schedule for the realization of a responsible government in India. 
  • Uncertainty in Self-Governance Timelines: This absence of a concrete timeframe made it challenging for Indian leaders to gauge the pace or predict the actual attainment of self-governance.
• British Authority to Determine Progress: The Indian leaders also objected to the provision that the decision-making process concerning the nature and timing of progress towards a responsible government rested solely with the British government. 
  • Dissatisfaction with British Authority: They were dissatisfied and resented the idea that the British authorities would unilaterally determine what was in the best interest of the Indian populace. 
  • Advocating for Indian Involvement: They believed that decisions about India’s governance and progress should involve and consider the wishes and needs of the Indian population, rather than being solely dictated by the British government.

Responsible Factors of Nationalist Resurgence 

Post World War I, circumstances within India, as well as external influences, fostered an environment conducive to a widespread movement against foreign governance.

Post-War Economic Difficulties

During World War I, India played a significant role by contributing both men and financial resources to support the British war efforts. Thousands of Indian men had sacrificed their lives on various war fronts. The resources, including food supplies, ammunition, and the maintenance of the army, were funded through taxes imposed on Indians. However, with the war’s end, all segments of the Indian population encountered various hardships:

• Industrial Sector: Initially, there was a surge in prices followed by an economic downturn. The situation was exacerbated by increased foreign investment, which pushed many industries to the brink of closure. 
  • Consequently, there was a call for protection against imports and financial aid from the government.
• Workers and Artisans: This group faced unemployment and suffered from the burden of high prices.
• Peasant and Rural Workers: High taxation and impoverished conditions plunged the peasants into deeper poverty, leading them to await a catalyst for protest.
• Soldiers: Indian soldiers returning from battlefields abroad shared their experiences, providing insights to the rural population. 
  • They were surprised to find a nation that was economically depleted and seemingly had less freedom than before.
• Educated Urban Classes: This segment grappled with unemployment and a heightened awareness of the British attitude, often tainted with racism, which affected their daily lives.

Anticipation of Political Benefits for Co-operation in the War

• Unrecognized Indian Contributions: Indians made substantial, yet unacknowledged, contributions to the British war effort during World War I. Notably, figures like Gandhi and many other nationalists cooperated with the war effort. 
  • A significant number of Indian troops made immense sacrifices on various war fronts.
• Unfulfilled Political Expectations: The Indian population held high expectations of reaping political benefits from the British government following the war due to their substantial contributions. 
  • These unmet expectations, combined with the charged atmosphere prevailing in the country, further intensified the sentiment of dissatisfaction and anticipation for political gains post-war.

Nationalists’ Disenchantment with Global Imperialism

During World War I, the Allied powers made commitments to uphold democratic principles and grant the right to self-determination to secure support from their colonies. Both sides in the conflict conducted vigorous propaganda campaigns to expose each other’s colonial actions as uncivilized. Regrettably, the assurances made during the war were not upheld in the post-war period. The inability to fulfill wartime commitments and the subsequent actions of colonial powers directly contributed to the emergence of these nationalist movements.

• Imperialist Control: The Paris Peace Conference and subsequent peace treaties revealed that the imperialist powers had no intention of releasing their hold on their colonies. 
  • Instead, they proceeded to redistribute the colonies of the defeated powers among themselves.
• Erosion of Colonial Superiority: This post-war situation shattered the perception of cultural and military superiority held by white colonial powers. The failure to deliver on promises of a democratic era and self-determination triggered a resurgence of militant nationalist movements across Asia and Africa.
  • Rise of Nationalist Movements: Various regions, including Turkey, Egypt, Ireland, Iran, Afghanistan, Burma, Malaya, the Philippines, Indonesia, Indo-China, China, and Korea, witnessed a growing wave of nationalist movements striving for independence and self-governance.

Impact of Russian Revolution (November 7, 1917)

The Bolshevik Party, led by Vladimir Lenin, orchestrated the overthrow of the Czarist regime, establishing the first socialist state, the Soviet Union. Under Lenin’s leadership, the Soviet Union took significant steps, including unilaterally relinquishing Czarist imperialist privileges in China and other parts of Asia. Furthermore, they granted self-determination rights to former Czarist colonies in Asia and accorded equal status to various Asian nationalities within the Soviet Union’s borders.

• The October Revolution symbolized a powerful message, ‘that substantial power lay within the people’. This historic event emphasized that the masses possessed the capability to challenge even the most formidable of despots, provided they were organized, united, and resolute. 
• The revolution served as a testament to the potential strength of an organized and determined populace in bringing about significant political change and challenging entrenched power structures.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the August Declaration of 1917 marked a pivotal, yet cautious, step towards greater Indian involvement in governance. While it acknowledged the demand for self-rule, the British strategy of dyarchy and lack of a clear timeline for reform ensured continued control. The post-war economic hardships and unmet political expectations further fueled Indian discontent. Additionally, global shifts and the Bolshevik Revolution highlighted the potential for significant political change, intensifying nationalist movements and challenging imperial dominance.

DOWNLOAD PDF