A good percentage of those who paid attention in High School History class probably remember something called the Yalta conference.
 |
|
Shaping the World to Come |
Consequently, and perhaps news to many, “arbitrary” borders dividing ethnic groups aren’t just an African / Asian thing. There are a surprising number of European “ethnics” who span “nations” – Finnish-Swedes, Alsation Germans, Baltic Russians, German Poles, Bosnian Serbs, the entire country of Belgium, etc. — many of which trace their predicament to Yalta and various other treaties, wars, forced migrations, and the like.
While Yalta was clearly significant on many levels, the earlier & lesser known Atlantic Conference should be interesting to mutineers because of the key role it played in Indian history… It was there that FDR made Indian Independence a pre-requisite to American involvement in WWII…
<
p>The State Department’s description of the Charter is simple and to the point –
The Atlantic Charter was a joint declaration released by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on August 14, 1941 following a meeting of the two heads of state in Newfoundland. The Atlantic Charter provided a broad statement of U.S. and British war aims…
“I think I speak as America’s President when I say that America won’t help England in this war simply so that she will be able to continue to ride roughshod over colonial peoples.”
– FDR to Churchill
Wikipedia provides a nice enumeration of the the specific, shared war goals outlined in the charter-
- No territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom.
- Territorial adjustments must be in accord with wishes of the peoples concerned.
- All peoples had a right to self-determination.
- Trade barriers were to be lowered.
- There was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of social welfare.
- Freedom from want and fear.
- Freedom of the seas.
- Disarmament of aggressor nations, postwar common disarmament.
- Defeat of Germany and other Axis powers.
<
p>
While the official text of the charter makes no specific statement about India per se, lofty language about self-determination and “territorial adjustments” carried clear implications for the future of the British Empire.
 |
|
Two thorns in Churchill’s side… |
…’Mr. President,’ [Churchill] cried, ‘I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the postwar world demonstrates it. But in spite of that’–and his forefinger waved–‘in spite of that, we know that you constitute our only hope. And’–his voice sank dramatically–‘{you} know that {we} know it. {You} know that {we} know that without America, the Empire won’t stand.’Churchill admitted, in that moment, that he knew the peace could only be won according to precepts which the United States of America would lay down.
<
p>And FDR had very specific recommendations about what to do with British India back in 1941 –
…‘India should be made a commonwealth at once. After a certain number of years–five perhaps, or ten–she should be able to choose whether she wants to remain in the Empire or have complete independence.‘As a commonwealth, she would be entitled to a modern form of government, an adequate health and educational standard. But how can she have these things, when Britain is taking all the wealth of her national resources away from her, every year? Every year the Indian people have one thing to look forward to, like death and taxes. Sure as shooting, they have a famine. The season of the famine, they call it.’
<
p>
<
p>I’m a bit more nuanced than the NewDeal-esque explanation for India’s poverty but, nevertheless, the man’s heart & goals are clear. Other accounts provide more color into the discussions – “Roosevelt, as a matter of absolute conviction, was at war with the British Empire.”
`You mentioned India,’ he [Churchill] growled.`Yes, I [Roosevelt] can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.’
Roosevelt was determined to have the British commit themselves now to the principles of the Four Freedoms, knowing that they were incompatible with the continued existence of the Empire.
…The British leadership now knew first hand, if they had only feared or suspected as much before, that Roosevelt, as a matter of absolute conviction, was at war with the British Empire.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
 |
|
He Fought for Indian Independence Too… |
And Churchill’s accounts provide a fascinating “reverse camera angle” view –
Writing in 1950, Churchill let down his guard about his true feeling about Roosevelt:“The President’s mind was back in the American War of Independence and he thought of the Indian problem in terms of thirteen colonies fighting George III at the end of the 18th century…”
<
p>
Unfortunately, FDR opposed the extant British empire far more than the gathering Soviet one. As a result, at Yalta he relented on Atlantic charter diktats when it came to the fate of Eastern Europe under Stalin after the war. Still, there’s no question that on the India question, FDR’s demands shook British expectations about the post-war fate of the empire to the core.
In later statements during the conflict, Churchill tried to backtrack and assert that the Atlantic Charter did not apply to India…. However, with US entry into the war and the Japanese knocking on India’s door, the die was cast and policy pronouncements from Downing street were very much swimming against the tide of history…
Wow, I had never heard of this before!
Vinod,
That’s an amazing nugget of history I was unaware of, thanks for the post.
i never heard of this before
Our history books (Maharashtra state board to be specific) did make some vague noise about it.
The FDR admin’s anti-Empire stance is a familiar part of the WWII narrative, at least in American high school history classes. It tends to be deemphasized in UK films and documentaries (in my view).
As an aside, I think UK historians usually cite Suez as the turning point in the Empire.
But at the same time Roosevelt was too scared to upset the status quo in his own country :
He was one of those rare leaders who actually studied history. Eleanor Roosevelt was the best First Lady in American history, a true humanitarian.
But at the same time Roosevelt was too scared to upset the status quo in his own country :
Roosevelt is not the first to do this, and it is not a uniquely American trait. Most countries are quick to condemn violations in other countries.
Fascinating stuff. It’s important that these stories are told and re-told.
Vikram, here is more on that: “Eleanor took an active interest in the subject of civil rights for black Americans. Being a Democrat, Franklin needed to approach the subject pragmatically since his party was dominated by Southerners who were often both segregationists and white supremacists. Eleanor however was very open in her approach: she worked closely with the NAACP and the National Council of Negro Women and she was instrumental in the creation of the integrated Southern Tenant Farmers Association in 1934 and the Southern Conference on Human Welfare held in Birmingham, Ala. in 1938. But perhaps it was Eleanor’s resignation from the Daughters of the American Revolution in 1939, in protest against the group’s barring the black singer Marian Anderson from performing at Constitution Hall that was her greatest act in behalf of the racially discriminated.” Quote is from a site on Women’s History.
Aside from FDR still being fired up about George III and the Revolutionary War, some historians theorize there were also pragmatic economic reasons about why the US wanted a free India (and a decolonized world in general): more markets for the US to enter and trade with. I honestly don’t think this was FDR’s main motivating factor, but it probably played a part. It’s ironic given how Soviet-aligned India would become in the 1950s onwards. But, at the very least, FDR wasn’t hypocritical—indeed, how can you decry fascism and communism if you’re practicing colonialism yourself?
If you’ve read Nehru’s “The Discovery of India”, you’ll notice that Nehru criticizes the British not only on moral grounds. He also uses the specific economic argument—that Britain keeps India a closed market for its own exploitation, that it doesn’t allow the importation of new technologies—as a means of revealing Britain’s cruelty and desire to keep India “backwards.” This, too, is ironic, as Nehru kept India closed and also made it near-impossible to import foreign materials, technology and equipment.
4 · Shodan said
Hmmm coming from that system I don’t remember any references to FDR when it came to Indian Independence. Then again I was not the most attentive kid in class.
A telegram from FDR to Churchill about ‘India’. From the the library of congress:
Page 1 Page 2
Santosh, It was mostly about the U.S. leaning on England. World leaders were covered separately. Looking at the dates it was quite easy to put two and two together.
More on FDR and India in Debating Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Foreign Policies, 1933-1945
FDR’s spine and resolve in this matter may have been strengthened to a great extent by the amazing Eleanor. She tangled with Churchill on several occasions over the hypocrisy of going to war against fascism to uphold freedom in Europe while denying the natives of European colonies the same dignity. Churchill knew full well that while he could wheedle and cajole the amiable FDR, his Imperial BS didn’t stand a chance before ER’s withering honesty.
Great post!!!!! Never knew these details.
Belgium recently is seeing that secessionist voices getting a little louder.
Hmmm coming from that system I don’t remember any references to FDR when it came to Indian Independence. Then again I was not the most attentive kid in class.
High school history books for CBSE, Senior Cambridge do talk about FDR’s “India Question” and the Yalta conference.
In fact, if you read any serious Gandhi book, you can even find the copies of correspondence between him, and FDR.
There is more to it, in principle, British Army was enlisting African Americans as officers, which US Army was not doing – However, Churchill telegrammed all consulates to make it extremely difficult.
“She tangled with Churchill on several occasions over the hypocrisy of going to war against fascism to uphold freedom in Europe while denying the natives of European colonies the same dignity.”
Good on Eleanor. However the practice of Jim Crow was in full effect in the US at the time of WWII, and FDR’s country could hardly be said to be the picture of enlightement.
I wonder what the reponse in the US would have been in the UK had made progress on Jim Crow a precondition to its help in the Pacific.
Why complain about it? Why not be happy for what he (directly or indirectly) did for India?
This article lends credence to my view that Gandhi, Nehru et al. had less to do with India’s independence than is commonly made out…and that to a large extent it was a changing global situation (attitudes, economics, WW2, etc) that made the days of the British Raj numbered. Which is not to say that the presence of a new, educated, idealistic, and vocal generation in India didn’t help. I suppose if no one in India ever demanded independence, the British MIGHT not have left…who knows.
Vinod, a very nice post. I also really liked your post on the Indian 4th Division from a week or so ago.
One of the reasons the tale of Roosevelt’s involvement with the cause of Indian independence was not told often in India (in the 1970s and 80s anyway) was that India and the US had by then moved into considerably antagonistic, if not completely hostile trajectories, and neither wanted very much to remind the other of the early 1940s, when each side had goodwill for the other, but also expectations of each other that remained largely unmet. Revisiting the issue today is timely, because the Indo-US engagement seems ready to pick up strength again.
The first chapter of Dennis Kux’s book “Estranged Democracies“, is called simply “Roosevelt”. It is on google books, and while you may have seen it, I thought I might flag it for others seeking more details.
Roosevelt’s intervention was quite strong and sustained during 1940-42. He sent several envoys, upgraded the US diplomatic representation in India, even intervened to make the first Cabinet Mission proposals of 1941-42 more acceptable to Gandhi, Nehru etc. The effort still failed, though the intervention was remarkably strong. Roosevelt strongly pressed Churchill to agree to Dominion status and a Provisional Government, but could not understand why Gandhi would launch a ‘Quit India’ movement at the height of the Japanese advance toward India, in mid-1942. His overall involvement in the ‘Indian nationalist cause’ flagged after Gandhi, Nehru etc were arrested. He had wanted the British to act like the US itself did vis-a-vis the Phillipines – unconditionally promise independence after the war, in exchange for full co-operation during the War, with a recognized Provisional Government in place. (There are some very interesting ‘what-ifs’ here, including whether Partition would ever then have happened.)
During this time (WW2), other prominent Americans involved in the India cause in addition to Elliott Roosevelt and FDR were: Eleanor Roosevelt, Sumner Welles, Wendell Wilkie, Harry Hopkins, Louis Fischer, William Phillips and Colonel Louis Johnson, among others. Also, General Joseph ‘Vinegar Joe’ Stillwell led the US Military Mission in India, which at one time had about 250,000 GIs, with large concentrations in Calcutta, Bangalore, Karachi etc.
It was a time when a different type of India-China comparison was in vogue: over the war effort, their respective civilian morale, and the like. China looked better to Stillwell! His GIs constructed many airfields in India’s NorthEast, to supply the China front against Japan.
I think the US involvement with India during 1940-46 has important lessons for the future, for all concerned. The Kux book chapter (about 35 pp.) has many more interesting details, very readably presented.
This article lends credence to my view that Gandhi, Nehru et al. had less to do with India’s independence than is commonly made out…and that to a large extent it was a changing global situation (attitudes, economics, WW2, etc) that made the days of the British Raj numbered.
Yes, and No.
True, that maintaining British Empire was becoming very expensive, and Churchill lost elections to Clement Atlee immediately after WW II.
If Churchill was still in power after WW II (no matter what FDR or anyone had complained), he was not going give India independence, maybe till into 1950s.
However, Gandhi, Nehru et al. made India’s independence not like Algeria, IndoChina, for that matter, like Palestine (Israel – again Brits were involved), and like all the Belgium colonies in Africa. Read Guha’s book.
Phillipines – unconditionally promise independence after the war, in exchange for full co-operation during the War, with a recognized Provisional Government in place.
Philippines is a very special case in WW 2 history – the entire US counter assault on Japan (in the Pacific Theater) – was pivoted through Philippines, and therefore, after Philippines had fell – General MacArthur – famous for his saying “I shall return” for recapture of Philippines.
On the other, India was bleed of its raw materials, famines induced in Bengal, through WW 2. So that kind of promises were not going to be made for India.
A very interesting article on the history of this line of analysis in the right. Some obvious analysis: as a student of real-politik who still had ideals, FDR might have tried to get what was possible for the cause of freedom, at the time.
Eleanor’s commitment to civil rights cannot be overemphasized. In her old age she braved death threats (and a complete lack of Secret Service/FBI support) to fight for civil rights.
An experienced American diplomat once told me that there was a time, probably pre FDR, when the American government was seriously considering advocating for a free Bengal. They figured that Bengal, which was far more developed in those days and had a lot of democratic infrastructure (newspapers, community groups), would survive independendance fairly well and also sap the rest of India of much of its “freedom-fuel.” (Before Gandhi, a lot of the freedom movement originated in Bengal.) In turn, the Americans would benefit from access to a liberated port half way across Asia. (This was before container ships, when Calcutta and Dhaka were some of the most important ports in the world.)
My favorite story about FDR advocating for Indian independence involves a bizarre bit of bedroom intrigue. One of the chief American envoys at the Atlantic conference was Averell Harriman. Name sound familiar? As in Pamela Harriman, former American ambassador to Paris, and his ex-wife. Her only son’s name is Winston Churchhill. Why is that? Why, because her first husband was Winston Churchhill’s husband. That’s right–FDR’s special envoy went to England and delivered extremely unwelcome demands from the Americans, and then he turned around and seduced Churchhill’s daughter-in-law away from Randolph Churchhill. In one particularly weird version of the tale, some people claim that Winston Churchill I, who was actually quite close to his daughter-in-law, brought her and Harriman together in order to distract Harriman–didn’t work. Wacky world we live in.
Vinod, Thanks for the information. As far as fighting the Soviets, I don’t think anyone was up for it. Millions had just perished and the last thing any one wanted was gear up and do it all over again. There may have been some in the military (like Patton) who wanted to fight the Russians, but there was no political will.
Vinod nice post… You would be interested to know that there is a chapter titled India, the UK and USA in the book Shadow of the Great Game which has lot of very interesting information relevant to the subject matter of your post.
Though the Atlantic charter didn’t make any specific reference to India, according to the book, it was actually China’s Chiag Kai-Shek who made a specific mention of India in his telegram dated 25th July 1942 to Roosevelt. In his telegram he requests US to consider India struggle for justice and equity.
In reply to this telegram Roosevelt writes to Chiang on 12th August that “…Under the Atlantic charter, the US supports independence for those who aspire for independence..”
25 · Bridget Jones said
In fact there is one other chapter in the book that is also very informative and relevant ” The Churchill-Roosevelt clash over India “
20 · chachaji said
Pearl Harbour attack by the Japanese in 1941 and the Sino-Japanese war from 1939-1941 raised the distint possibilty of the Indian front against the Japanese advance in WW2 . This was the main reason why US got interested in India and its politics.
23 · Saheli said
Saheli, this is very interesting. Did you happen to ask him when that was? Bengal was united only till 1905, and the Muslim League was founded in Dacca in 1906. I would imagine the ‘Free Bengal’ idea had to be before that.
Just as a side note, Woodrow Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’ and ‘self-determination’ rhetoric also took a lot of Asia by storm circa 1917-19 .
I know the subject here is WW2 and FDR, but here’s a great link on Wilson and his impact on the Indian and Chinese nationalist movements.
19 · Amitabh said
The struggle of Gandhi and his followers was necessary for India to attain freedom and to have stability.
You are right when saying that the British might have left anyways: either they would have reached a point where they had finished sucking out all resources out of India or that they would not have managed to rule India due to lack of money after WWII.
What Gandhi and his followers did was create a grassroots movement that allowed the common man to take part in the freedom struggle. His politics of non-cooperation, fully realized and with mass popular support, would have made it very hard, if not impossible, for the British to rule India – the British were able to rule only because they had Indian support (through Indian markets, through Indian armies, through proxy rulers like nawabs and zamindars, and through Indian workers). Gandhi showed the people an effective way to drive out the British. At the same time, the freedom struggle fostered a sense of unity among Indians and created an effective leadership structure that was instrumental in building up a free India in the few years after 1947. Without the unity or the leadership, India, or the mass of princely states, would not have survived as India did. The British would always have left whenever it was most convenient for them – they would not have waited until a suitable time when the Indian people were sufficiently united or when they would have had an effective leadership. In this sense, what Gandhi and his followers did was not possibly only helpful, but necessary.
Same board. I don’t remember the Yalta Conf or FDR being mentioned, but I do remember something about American post-WW2 pressure playing a strong role in Britain letting go of India in 47. Either pressure via a UN resolution or direct pressure on the British.
but I do remember something about American post-WW2 pressure playing a strong role in Britain letting go of India in 47. Either pressure via a UN resolution or direct pressure on the British.
It was neither.
When the Labor Party led by Clement Atlee won elections, one of their main election promise was to dissolve the British Empire, starting from India.
Why?
Because, the situation was so desperate in England, there was not enough coal to heat England, and in the grim winter of 1945-1946 hovering close to starvation, keeping an empire was seen as a luxury.
Even then Churchill and the Conservative Party was not that keen. I do not think British politicians back then (as opposed to Thatcher, and Blair) took orders from Amreeka
Even Clement Atlee was not completely anti-colonization, anti-Empire building
From wikipedia:
Attlee’s cabinet was responsible for the first and greatest act of decolonisation in the British Empire — India. The partition of India soon created Pakistan, which then incorporated East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. The independence of Burma and Ceylon was also negotiated around this time. Some of the new countries became British Dominions, the genesis of the modern Commonwealth of Nations.
His government’s policies with regard to the other colonies, however, particularly those in Africa, were very different. A major military base was built in Kenya, and the African colonies came under an unprecedented degree of direct control from London, as development schemes were implemented with a view to helping solve Britain’s desperate post-war balance of payments crisis, and (perhaps secondarily) raising African living standards. This ‘new colonialism’ was, however, generally a failure: in some cases, such as a then-infamous Tanganyika groundnut scheme, spectacularly so.
Thanks, Kush. Yes, I know that Labour winning the post-war election was the primary cause. But there was also mention of American pressure. Besides school textbooks, I also recall reading actual Times’ newspaper clips from the 40s headlining American pressure for Indian independence (dismantling Empire). Too lazy to Google.
To give a further peek into Roosevelt thinking about India here is an instruction that Roosevelt wired to the US ambassador in Britain – John G Winant, after being pursuaded by Chiag Kai-Shek to take up India’s cause –
“In the greatest confidence could you or Averil Harriman [ the president’s special representative in London] or both let me have a slant on what the Prime Minister thinks about new relationships between Britain and India ? I hesitate to send him a direct message because, in a strict sense, it is not our business. It is, however of great interest to us from the point of view of the conduct of the war. “
Ref US FR 1942, Vol. 1, pp 604-5 as referenced in the book – Shadow of the Great Game.
Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr and Nelson Mandela may get the credit for ending colonial rule in India, Jim Crow racism in America and apartheid in South Africa but the reality is that none of them had the power to overthrow their oppressors. Their non-violent movements only succeeded because of pressure applied from external sources.
In the case of Martin Luther King and Civil Rights for non-whites in the U.S. it was intense moral pressure applied by communists during the Cold War; in the case of Mandela and ending apartheid against africans and indians in South Africa it was a combination of worldwide moral pressure, boycotts, and financial disinvestment. In the case of Gandhi and the end of colonial rule in India, FDR may have played a role in morally pressuring the Brits but a greater role was played by the ease with which the japanese defeated colonial regimes all across south-east Asia. The japanese kicked the americans out of the Phillipines, the French out of Vietnam, the Dutch out of Indonesia and the british out of Malaya and Hong Kong. Colonialism never recovered its credibility after that crushing defeat.
Dev, yes, I’m inclined to believe this. “Free Tibet” car-stickers anyone? Free Aung San Suu Kyii anyone?
Gandhi could have gone on with his non-violence crapola for another 50 years in addition to the first 50, and the British really needn’t have changed a thing besides being even more amused :).
Non-violence was only a characteristic of the Gandhi’s movement for Indian struggle; his movement is better understood when termed as the non-cooperation movement. With non-cooperation, the British would not have a financial incentive for staying in India; combined with other issues, these would have driven the British out. As I said earlier, I think that the unity that Gandhi’s movement brought in India and the leadership structure that it created, was crucial for India to survive in the early years after independence.
That’s not right. Gandhi was treated as a rockstar and a saint by the “influential sections” of the American public and political class even prior to India getting independence and his assasination. Gandhi and Congress movement generated a lot of support in US for the freedom/dominion status of India from British rule and US applies enormous pressure. It is ridiculous for Churchill to fight against the germans claiming that he is defending freedom while denying the same to millions of Indians.
Indian ‘history text’ books are (I think) the worst in the world and just portray the ‘government version’ of the history. I studied in school during the end of the cold-war period when India was mostly in the Soviet camp and there was no reference to the positive role played by US in Indian independence. Infact, what we read is just the ‘politically correct’ version of history. There is not much mention of the Pakistan movement either.
herndon_guy, thanks for your thoughtful comments…you’ve given me some things to think about.
Gandhi certainly had some impact in unifying (or at least getting on the same page) many of the disparate, fractious, culturally and geographically diverse, stratified subgroups and subcultures of the subcontinent. In a way (as you said grassroots) that had never been done before. However I think he could have used his charisma a lot better than to foist his particular brand of eccentric philosophies on the blindly faithful populace. Essentially the values Gandhi taught were a mixture of Gujarati/bania/vaishnav/jain cultural traits, and I don’t think they were necessarily a good fit for the whole country. Although it’s complicated, because as Pakistan and other countries have shown us, when you go down the road of violence and armed resistance, you often unleash forces which then become very difficult to control, and which can hijack everything.
Let’s leave it at it’s complicated, because as the US and other countries have shown us, when you go down the road of violence and armed resistance, you often end up with something good.
True.
Wrong analogy. Violence and militarily fighting against the Brits would not have worked in India. Look at the ethnically diverse Afghanistan. Once they drove the Russians out through violence they turned the weapon against themselves.
Congress/ non-violence / non-cooperation / civil disobedience etc. are the best strategies for that time.
That’s what she said.
About my status on Facebook.
as the classic saying goes “aside from tyranny, fascism, slavery, monarchy, imperialism, totalitarianism, war has never solved anything.”
We can now add WMDs to the list.
42 · Ponniyin Selvan said
Except I wasn’t drawing an analogy :).
I thought the UN was supposed to handle that one
Well, glad that somebody more competent and honest than them decided to take it into their own hands then.
what crap. first, india was not a minority within the british empire—it had deficit of power, not of population. in both the cases you mention, the ruling power can clamp down since the opposition is not big in numbers. if you have numbers, your non cooperation is very expensive for the ruling power to maintain, ww2 or not.
second, violence is a stupid idea if you are less powerful or less prosperous than your opponent, unless of course, you purpose is just destruction like with the naxal movement. the american war was between rough equals (british on american soil vs. americans themselves), and the equivalent effort in india did exist—the failed “sepia mutiny” of 1857. india in 1914 was in no position to mount an armed struggle like america did, or even like in 1857.
to me, the independence movement was extraordinary, something to remember especially today. countries build up their psyche based on accomplishments, and this is hell of an accomplishment to build a nation on, on par with the bill of rights or the french revolution. it may help to remember, morality and non violence were not something anyone really had used them for any sort of freedom movement. being the first such movement, and including disparate groups of some 300 million deserves more respect, and should really inspire you, even if it had failed (which in fact, it did to an extent—the partition).
that generation pulled off what many of you accuse modern india of lacking, and what every country even today lacks to some extent—cooperation for a common goal irrespective of language, caste, wealth and even gender to an extent.
@ 11
This, too, is ironic, as Nehru kept India closed and also made it near-impossible to import foreign materials, technology and equipment.
CondeKedar, its easy to critise the past. Remember that India in the 50s had insufficient food. Nehru simply prioritised basic food imports. Every penny of forex earned was spent on imports; of the right kind, me thinks.