Decline and Fall of the British Empire

Sep 2015
1,805
England
Dreuxeng, I find your last few posts vague with little logic or reasoning behind them. I can not glean what arguments you are trying to make.

Pugsville said, "The Labour Party pretty much favour indepednce for India in the 1930s."

To which you responded, No, "(see Government of India Act 1919)."

which suggested to me that Britain favored Indian independence as early as 1919. Except I don't see independence in the 1919 Act. It's about responsible rule for India within the British Empire.

Pugsville seems not to have gleaned any thrust to your arguments either because in post #117 he asked you "How am I wrong? What historical knowledge am I missing?" which you refused to answer.

If you want to have a productive conversation I suggest you be more specific than "Nope," "No, you are [wrong]," "... you are wrong again." and don't tell someone to look it up a second time if after the first time they tell you they can't find what you're trying to point them to. What key details are Pugsville supposed to find in the 1919 Act? I don't know either. A "quote" citing chapter and verse from the 1919 Act might be helpful.

Moderator
I don't see what your problem is? You seem suspicious and pedantic, and in a muddle in your last paragraph. It was pugsvil and Larry that said i was 'wrong'. And now you! I thought we were having a laugh. I thought it was funny anyway.

But nonetheless: A simple observation of the wiki page for the Government of India Act 1919 has the following quote from just the 2nd paragraph of the page:

"The Acts of 1773 and 1784 were designed to establish a regular system of administration and justice under the Honourable East India Company. The Act of 1833 opened the door for Indians to public office and employment. The Act of 1858 transferred the administration from the Company to the Crown and laid the foundations of public life which exist in India to-day. The Act of 1861 sowed the seed of representative institutions, and the seed was quickened into life by the Act of 1909. The Act which has now become law entrusts the elected representative of the people with a definite share in the Government and points the way to full responsible Government hereafter."

Thus there is the diarchy arrangement of the 1919 Act for the Provincial governments, read: 'a definite share in the Government'; and then there is the following point, beginning, "and..." (see in bold), which is subsequently followed by the key word "full". Thus, in other words, having established diarchic rule in the Provinces, the way to full government hereafter implies not just diarchic rule, but full rule. And indeed this is what duly occurred, via the 1935 Act, for the Provinces.

And that therefore regardless of whether the Labour party favoured independence for India, it is the British Government, via Act of Parliament, that favoured independence for India, from 1919 onwards thereby - at some appropriate time and at some arrived at point, "hereafter". "responsible Government" implies Dominion status, but clearly as with Australia and New Zealand they may choose to sever even that very slight connection - of having a representative of the imperial government, with very limited powers as part of the constitution - entirely, and quite easily! And they might think as much, would they not...

from post 104: The preamble to the Independence of India Act passed by the post-WW II Labour government clearly states that Britain cannot hold down India any longer. One of the many factors which led to this was Bose's thrust during WW II into India apart from Gandhiji's intensive agitation and several terrorist acts like the raid on Chittagong armoury by Surya Sen, naval mutiny and so on.
pugsville said:
I read your previous statements post Bose military operations as the decisive moment, not one of several factors,

The Labour Party pretty much favour indepednce for India in the 1930s.
From his wiki page: 'Subhas Chandra Bose (23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945) was an Indian nationalist whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India, but whose attempt during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a troubled legacy.'

So the decisive moment was not, according to pugsville, Bose's actions during WWII but in fact the Labour Party of the U.K. in the 1930s.

Which was clearly not remotely the case, and he probably knows that...

And more importantly your post is a mild slur, that attempts to discredit and marginalise, not really just me, but my line of discussion, understanding, and opinion; and by contrast showing favour to pugsvils line of discussion and opinion. And that cannot be the job of a moderator. If someone is not overly good at discussion, it is hardly decent and reasonable to try and shame them.

I'm pretty well embarrassed really.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,879
Portugal
I'm pretty well embarrassed really.
Don’t know why. From an outside reader I think this last post of yours was the first that made some sense and allowed some understanding of one perspective, giving the debate about the theme a step forward in the “Nope”/“Well, you're wrong.”/“No, you are.” pit that it had fallen.
 

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,743
UK
I don't think there wa a single tipping point for its decline.
Maybe the birth of thee Indian independence movement.
Or the steady rise of the USA economically in the late 19th century. However, this would have benefitted Britain since the USA would have needed raw materials from its colonies. All the sugar for the first Coke recipes and production had to come from somewhere, and with Jamaica and Guyana nearby, it would have made good sense.

If anything, I think WWII itself was the turning point, since the USA managed to flex its economic muscles, and in terms of production was by far the biggest Ally.
And once WWII ended, the UK needed repair and of all the major war combatants the USA was the least scathed. Possibly WWI was also, since the USA started to match its economic might with a stronger overseas role.
 
Sep 2015
1,805
England
Don’t know why. From an outside reader I think this last post of yours was the first that made some sense and allowed some understanding of one perspective, giving the debate about the theme a step forward in the “Nope”/“Well, you're wrong.”/“No, you are.” pit that it had fallen.
I gave both of them (or anyone) the benefit of the doubt. mm?

And you're wrong about your idea of an outside reader perspective. They might have done an internet search as i recommended, and seen the wiki page. Or found something from elsewhere that i am not aware of, or that everyone on the site is not aware of ! Sometimes that is the case, and we all win, such as the League of United Nations thread, where a Brazilian friend put us right, with key otherwise missing detail.
 
Jun 2019
81
Afghanistan originally
British raj was one of the most strangest empire for us Afghans.

Imagine a rural boy in his early teens from afghanistan when British took over bengal, by the time he was something like 40 whole of India was under british rule... A small nation tiny population from 15000 or more kilometers away! In single generation !
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: grammaticq
Sep 2015
1,805
England
British raj was one of the most iconic empire for us Afghans.

Imagine a rural boyin his early teens when British took over bengal, by the time he was something like 40 whole of India was under british rule... A small nation tiny population from 15000 or more kilometers away! In single generation !
You mean it might have been understood as a bit peculiar ?
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,466
Dispargum
"The Acts of 1773 and 1784 were designed to establish a regular system of administration and justice under the Honourable East India Company. The Act of 1833 opened the door for Indians to public office and employment. The Act of 1858 transferred the administration from the Company to the Crown and laid the foundations of public life which exist in India to-day. The Act of 1861 sowed the seed of representative institutions, and the seed was quickened into life by the Act of 1909. The Act which has now become law entrusts the elected representative of the people with a definite share in the Government and points the way to full responsible Government hereafter."

Thus there is the diarchy arrangement of the 1919 Act for the Provincial governments, read: 'a definite share in the Government'; and then there is the following point, beginning, "and..." (see in bold), which is subsequently followed by the key word "full". Thus, in other words, having established diarchic rule in the Provinces, the way to full government hereafter implies not just diarchic rule, but full rule. And indeed this is what duly occurred, via the 1935 Act, for the Provinces.

And that therefore regardless of whether the Labour party favoured independence for India, it is the British Government, via Act of Parliament, that favoured independence for India, from 1919 onwards thereby - at some appropriate time and at some arrived at point, "hereafter". "responsible Government" implies Dominion status, but clearly as with Australia and New Zealand they may choose to sever even that very slight connection ...
This is a cogent argument. Had you said this earlier, we could have avoided some of the later unpleasantness.