Britain and Indian Nationalism: Imprint of Ambiguity, 1929-1942 (review)

Low has written a meticulously researched and tightly reasoned book analyzing the defining thirteen years of what is often called the Indian struggle for freedom. Not all of the factual data that he presents are new, although they have rarely been posed so persuasively. How Low interprets this material makes Britain and Indian Nationalism a significant contribution to the history of South Asia.

It is Low’s contention that the liberal domestic tradition of support for self-determination, rooted in democratic institutions and personal freedom, made it difficult for the British rulers of India to suppress totally the appetite for goals so deeply associated with British history, when they were expressed by British colonial subjects across the seas. On the other hand, as arguably the predominant power of the nineteenth century, Britain was not prepared to surrender this position meekly in the next. This attitude, Low argues, led to a marked ambiguity in British policy when, not surprisingly, India became the first dependent imperial entity to spawn an independence movement. The British, we are told, never seriously considered leaving the subcontinent until the imperial game was in its final throes, but they could not be totally insensitive to the aspirations of Indians who were, after all, merely demanding some of the rights possessed by every Englishman. Hence, the conflict between British master and Indian subject rarely lost all traces of civility or descended to the depths of brutality not infrequently encountered in the efforts of colonizing powers more determined to maintain the status quo at all costs.

As a secondary theme, Britain and Indian Independence compares American determination to grant the Philippines independence at the earliest possible moment with the often uncompromising efforts of the French and Dutch to prevent any steps in their colonies toward independence and the ambiguity of British policy in India. But the main emphasis of the book is clearly on the fight between India and Britain over what constitutional advances on the road toward dominion status or independence should be taken and when. Within the context of the major war, battles took place about satyagraha (non-violence) as an Indian tactic and martial law and arbitrary imprisonment as British ones.

Ambiguity lay less within the council chambers of Delhi, where a resolute attitude toward Indian nationalism was usually the order of the day, than among the prime minister and his cabinet colleagues in London. The latter were almost always more sympathetic to Indian aspirations than their colleagues in India. Nor was ambiguity left exclusively to the British, the Indian National Congress was faced with a similar dilemma. Much of its leadership agreed with a British policy of gradual development and evolutionary progress toward a nebulous form of self-rule. Mohandas K. Gandhi, himself, whose brilliant political tactics were the basis of most Congress success, often snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by abrupt changes of direction and generally unpredictable decision making. The British could have destroyed satygraha as an effective weapon, but through a hesitant and wrong-headed policy, they invigorated the Indian dedication to civil disobedience. All in all, the author tells us, “To a much greater degree than is generally appreciated British ambiguity conditioned both the overall pattern of events and very many particulars of the story, and gave it those distinctive characteristics that served to shape its striking singularity” (39).

Low bases his conclusions on determined archival research of the highest order, but he makes his points not through extended and tireless presentation of all that occurred during his period of concern. Rather, he explores in depth a few particular episodes that clearly illuminate the points that he is trying to make. Three related questions are of particular concern to him: Were the British prepared to respond positively to Indian demands for independence? How far were they willing to go to suppress Indian aspirations? What were their limits of tolerance when it came to placating the...