India: an Uncertain Goal

  • Nicholas Mansergh


The dominions whose status was defined in the Balfour Report and whose names were listed in section I of the Statute of Westminster were predominantly European in respect of their population and wholly European in respect of their government. There were minorities of non-European origin in Australia, in Canada and in New Zealand; there was a large non-European majority in the Union of South Africa. But neither minorities nor majority were in a position to exert a decisive influence upon government. In Canada and even in South Africa it was the cultural tensions between peoples of European stock that hitherto had exercised a formative influence upon national policy, and possibly for that reason it was in the past by no means unknown, however much discountenanced by Canadian scholars, for the term ‘race’ to be applied to relations between English and French-speaking Canadians, while on the lips of South African politicians the terms ‘race’ and ‘racial’, until recent times, customarily referred to relations between British and Afrikaners.1


Dominion Status Responsible Government British Government British Rule Princely State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    See his speech of March 1954 at the opening of the Fifth (unofficial) Commonwealth Relations Conference at Lahore as reprinted in N. Mansergh, The Multi-Racial Commonwealth, London, 1955, p. 144.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    J. A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study, (3rd ed.), London, 1938, p. 51.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    S. Gopal, British Policy in India 1858–1905, Cambridge, 1965, p. 261.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Hansard, Parl. Deb., (Commons), Third series, vol. cccxlii (1890), col. 93.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    Hansard, Parl. Deb., (Lords), 4th series, vol. 198, col. 1985.Google Scholar
  6. Hansard, Parl. Deb., (Lords), 4th series, vol. 198, col. 1985. See also John, Viscount Morley, Recollections, (2 vols), London, 1917, vol. 2, pp. 172–3.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    Cf., Mansergh and Moon (eds), India. The Transfer of Power 1942–47, London, H.M.S.O. 1970-, vol. V, no. 256, vol. VII, no. 123 and Vol. x, no. 382.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    The Indian Councils Act 1861, 24 and 25 Vict., c. 67, reprinted C. H. Philips, The Evolution of India and Pakistan 1858–1947: Select Documents, London, 1962, pp. 35–8.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    Cf., R. B. McDowell, The Irish Administration, London, 1964, p. 61, and chapter 2 generally.Google Scholar
  10. 17.
    Philip Woodruff, The Men Who Ruled India, (2 vols), London, 1954, vol. 1, The Founders; vol. 2, The Guardians.,Google Scholar
  11. 18.
    H. A. L. Fisher, James Bryce, (2 vols), London, 1927, vol. 1, pp. 259–60. The letter was to his mother and dated 20 November 1888.Google Scholar
  12. 20.
    K. M. Panikkar, Asia and Western Dominance, London, 1953, p. 16.Google Scholar
  13. 24.
    R. C. Dutt, letter to Gokhale, 24 May 1906, quoted in B. R. Nanda, Gokhale. The Indian Moderates and the British Raj, OUP, Delhi, 1977.Google Scholar
  14. 33.
    Reprinted in Sir M. Gwyer and A. Appadorai, Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921–47, (2 vols), Bombay, 1957, vol. 1, p. 220.Google Scholar
  15. 39.
    On the second point see R. J. Moore, The Crisis of Indian Unity 1917–1940, Oxford, 1974, p. 316.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Nicholas Mansergh 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Mansergh
    • 1
  1. 1.St John’s CollegeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations