Zusammenfassung
Noch bevor sich die britische Herrschaft über den ganzen Subkontinent ausgedehnt und diesen administrativ organisiert hatte, richteten einige weitsichtige Briten ihren Blick auf die Zukunft, wobei sie eine künftige Ablösung für unumgänglich hielten 94. War es denkbar, daß das kleine Großbritannien auf die Dauer Millionen Menschen fremder Rasse und Zivilisation beherrschen konnte? Würde nicht die Begegnung mit der Kolonialmacht einen Prozeß der Verwestlichung einleiten, der den Willen zur Selbstbestimmung in sich trug und sich eines Tages gegen den British Raj richten würde? Konnte und durfte England eine solche Verwestlichung verhindern? War imperiale Herrschaft mit dem liberalen Credo vereinbar und würde nicht ein »zivilisiertes« und unabhängiges Indien zum besten Handelspartner Großbritanniens werden? Der britische Liberalismus war so sehr von der Überlegenheit und Allgemeingültigkeit der westlich-christlichen Zivilisation überzeugt, daß die rassische und kulturelle Verschiedenheit kaum in Rechnung gezogen wurde und fremde Völker für Self-government nach britischem Muster befähigt erschienen, womit sich eine zeitliche Begrenzung der europäischen Herrschaft ergab. Ganz ähnlich hat auch Frankreich im beginnenden 19. Jahrhundert an die Allgemeingültigkeit und Ubertragbarkeit der Ideen von 1789 geglaubt und -auf seine Weise — durch Integration und Assimilation die Zukunftsfrage zu beantworten gesucht.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literatur
Bekannt ist vor allem der Ausspruch Sir Thomas Munros, des bedeutenden Gouverneurs von Madras aus dem Jahre 1824: England müsse regieren bis Indien »abandoned most of their superstitions and prejudices, and become sufficiently enlightened to frame a regular government for themselves, and to conduct and preserve it. Whenever such a time shall arrive, it will probably be best for both countries that the British control over India should be gradually withdrawn«. The Concept of Empire, ed. G. Bennett, 1953, p. 70 Macaulay nannte 1833 den Tag, da britisch-westliche Zivilisation Indien zur Unabhängigkeit führe, »the proudest day in English history« a.a.O., p. 74. Vgl. auch George D. Bearce, British attitudes towards India 1784–1858, 1961.
Vgl. Die Ausbreitung Englands, d. Aus. 1954, p. 192 f., 231.
“It is vain, however, to pretend that India can be granted self-government on the colonial lines. It would mean ruin to India and treason to our trust. The Empire cannot apply the same policy to the Colonies and to India... Were India to be lost, she herself would reel back into chaos, and the British Empire, at any rate in Asia, would perish...” Concept of Empire, p. 355 f.
J. D. B. Miller, Richard Jebb and the Problem of Empire, 1956, p. 33.
M. N. Das, India under Morley and Minto. Politics behind revolution, repression and reformes, 1964, vor allem, Kap. VI. Für dies und das Folgende Dietmar Rothermund, Die politische Willensbildung in Indien 1900–1960, 1965, p. 50 f.
2. B. Brief an Morley, 28. 5. 1906, Das p. 66. Vor dem Imperial Legislative Council am 25. 1. 1910: “We have distinctly maintained that the representative Government in its western sense is totally inapplicable to the Indian Empire and would be uncongenial to the traditions of Eastern peoples — that Indian conditions do not admit of popular representation — that the safety and welfare of this country must depend on the supremacy of British Administration ... We have aimed at the reform and enlargement of our Councils but not at the creation of parliaments.” Zit. Marquess of Zetland, Self-Government for India, in: Foreign Affairs, Okt. 1930, p. 2.
Vor allem die bekannte Erklärung Morleys im Oberhaus vom 17. 12. 1908: “If I were attempting to set up a Parliamentary system in India, or if it could be said that this chapter of reforms led directly or necessarily up to the establishment of a Parliamentary system in India, I, for one, would have nothing at all to do with it... If my existence, either officially or corporeally were prolonged twenty times longer than either of them is likely to be, a Parliamentary system in India is not the goal to which I for one moment would aspire.” H. o. L. vol. 198 S. 1983 f. zit. The Evolution of India and Pakistan 1858–1947, ed C. H. Philips, 1962, p. 85.
Für dies und das Folgende der ausgezeichnete Aufsatz von S. R. Mehrotra, The politics behind the Montagu declaration of 1917, in: Politics and Society in India, ed. C. H. Philips, 1963, p. 72. Dazu die interessante Briefstelle bei Das, p. 66 f., und die Bemerkung zu Minto: “As time goes on, Indian discontent or alienation... will be sure to run into the same channels of violence as Italian, Russian, Irish discontent.” 8. 7.1909, Das, p. 21.
Evolution of India, p. 162.
Mehrotra, p. 77.
H.of L. 24. 6. 1912, S. 156.
H. of L.29. 7. 1912, S. 745.
Milner, The Nation and the Empire, 1913.
Auch Lord Bryce, der berühmte Verfasser von »The American Commonwealth« meinte 1914: “Everyone admits in his heart that it is impossible to ignore the differences which make one group of races unfit for the institutions which have given energy and contentment to another more favourably placed.” Zit. Hugh Tinker, Ballot Box and Bayonnet, 1964, p. 10 f.
Siehe die Belege bei Mehrotra p. 77.
Memorandum zit. bei Mehrotra p. 76.
S. R. Mehrotra, Imperial Federation and India 1868–1917, in: Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies 1961/1, p. 38.
Presidential Address Sinhas auf dem Kongreß in Bombay 1915, Mehrotra, The politics... p. 81.
Text in Evolution of India p. 171 f. Der englische König wird gebeten, »to issue a proclamation that it is the aim and intention of British policy to confer self-government on India at an early date«.
Zit. Smith, Oxford History of India, 1961, p. 780.
Ich folge wiederum Mehrotra, p. 82 f.
Chamberlain an Chelmsford im Frühling 1917, Ziel der brit. Politik müßte sein »free institutions with a view to ultimate self-government within the Empire«, zit. Sir Charles Petrie, The life and letters of the right Honorable Sir Austin Chamberlain, 1940 vol. 2, p. 76.
U. a. Evolution of India, p. 264.
Der Hindu-Moslem-Verfassungsplan von 1916 hatte keine verantwortliche Regierung vorgesehen und sich an einem anderen Verhältnis zwischen Legislative und Exekutive orientiert! Rothermund, p. 75.
Ronaldshay (später Lord Zetland), The life of Lord Curzon, 1928 vol. III., p. 164 f. Mehrotra, p. 95. Es ist nicht abgeklärt, was Curzon mit dieser Abänderung bezweckte und von welchen Vorstellungen und von welchem Begriffs-Verständnis er ausging.
«If you analyse the term ‘full Dominion Self-Government’, you will see that it is of somewhat wider extent, conveying that not only will the Executive be responsible to the Legislature, but the Legislature will in itself have the full powers which are typical of the modern Dominion. I say there is some difference of substance, because responsible government is not necessarily incompatible with a Legislature with limited or restricted powers. It may be that full Dominion self-government is the logical outcome of responsible government, nay, it may be the inevitable and historical development of responsible government, but it is a further and a final step.” Gwyer-Appadorai, p. 220.
H. of C. 6. 8. 1918, vol. 109 S. 1147.
Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, Cmd. 9109 (1918), Art. 180.
In den »Letters to the people of India on Responsible Government« 1918 bezeichnet Curtis die Erklärung von 1917 als »in substance the most important ever made on the place of India in the British Commonwealth... The Pronouncement is binding on the Secretary of State in all its terms«, p. 13.
Vgl. Speeches and Documents on the Indian constitution 1921–1947, ed. Gwyer und Appa-dorai, 1957, vol. I, p. 1.
2. B. Lord Meston, Quo vadis in India, in: Contemporary Review, Okt. 1920. Valentine Chirol, India old and new, 1921.
The Indian Annual Register, ed. Mitra 1919 p. 16. Sydenham hatte die Reformen von 1919 abgelehnt, während sie Außenminister Lord Gurion verteidigt hatte. H. of L., 12. 12. 1919, vol. 37, S. 993 f.
Hancock, Survey of Commonwealth Affairs I, 170 f. Robert Blake, The unknown Prime Minister. The life and times of Andrew Bonar Law 1858–1923, 1952, p. 421.
The crumbling of an Empire. Sept. 1916-March 1922, a chronological statement of the decline of British authority in India, 1922.
H. of. L., 7. 2. 1922, vol. 49, S. 33.
D. Übersetzung: Verlorene Herrschaft (mit einem Vorwort von K. Haushofer), 1924. Der Verfasser A. Cartbill ist ein Pseudonym.
H. of L., 7. 7. 1925, vol. 61, S. 1092.
Birkenhead sei — berichtet sein Sohn — von Anfang an den Montagu-Chelmsford-Refor-men kritisch gegenüberstanden, denn Indien sei »not capable of Dominion Status for centuries ... All the conferences in the world cannot bridge the unbridgeable«. P. 506 f. “It does not do to take these people too seriously; indeed I find it increasingly difficult to take any Indian politician very seriously.” The life of F. E. Smith, First Earl of Birkenhead, by his Son, 1960, p. 419.
Restrospect. The Memoirs of Viscount Simon, 1952, p. 144 f.
Birkenhead, p. 512.
Auch ein liberaler indischer Politiker wie Sapru muß sich am 27. 12. 1927 distanzieren: “... if our patriotism is a prejudice and if the patriotism of the seven Members of Parliament is to be treated as impartial justice, then we Liberals feel justified in telling the Government here and in England: You may do anything you like in the assertion of your rights as supreme power, but we are not going to acquiesce in this method of dealing with us. Neither our self-respect nor our sense of duty to our country can permit us to go near the Commission.” Gwyer-Appadorai, p. 210.
Text bei Gwyer-Appadorai, p. 225 f., oder Evolution of India, p. 286. Die Entstehung der Erklärung ist noch nicht ganz geklärt. Sie basierte auf Gesprächen zwischen MacDonald, Benn und Irwin, während Baldwin die Zustimmung der konservativen Partei gegeben haben soll unter der Bedingung, daß Simon zuvor gefragt werde; diese Befragung ist nicht erfolgt, vgl. Simon, Restrospect, p. 150 f.
Irwin berichtete rückblickend: “Indian opinion professed itself greatly outraged by what in several quarters was described as a denial of India’s right to Self-Government, and the reaction in nationalist circles was sharp. While there were of course many responsible and wise persons in India, as in this country, who did not at all like the straightforward declaration I proposed to make, to me and, I think, to most people in India the case for it appeared overwhelming, since the dilemma seemed inescapable. It was surely hard to say what the ‘progressive realisation of responsible government’ could mean except the ultimate achievement of status equivalent to that enjoyed by the Dominions, to which they had moved by precisely the same road as that now marked out for India. Moreover the Governor-General’s Instrument of Instructions used a language that could hardly bear any other interpretation. Tor above all things it is Our will and pleasure that the plans laid by Our Parliament for the progressive realisation of responsible government in British India as an integral part of Our Empire may come to fruition to the end that British India may attain its due place among Our Dominions/ But if the words ‘progressive realisation of responsible government’ could or did mean something less than this, then it was not strange that Indians should recoil from the idea of second-class membership in a graded Imperial society, and turn their thoughts, as they were beginning to do, in the direction of independence. To anyone at the Indian end this seemed the great danger which had to be forestalled, and which indeed could probably be forestalled without too much difficulty, if quite groundless suspicions and misunderstandings could be removed.” Lord Halifax, Fullness of days, 1957, p. 120.
Gopal zitiert eine Äußerung Gandhis: “I can wait for the Dominionstatus constitution, if I can get the real Dominion Status in action, if today there is a real change of heart.” S. Gopal, The viceroyalty of Lord Irwin 1926–1931, 1957, p. 51, 110.
Samuel Hoare, Neun bewegte Jahre, d. Übers. 1955, p. 82.
H. of C., 7. 11. 1929, vol. 231, S. 1303 f. H. of L., 5.11.1929, vol. 75, S. 372 f. Die Kritiker suchten mit Erfolg die Regierung auf eine Antwort festzunageln, die Erklärung inauguriere keine neue Politik, und Dominionstatut gelte weiterhin als ein nur »in the fullness of days« zu erreichendes Ziel. Amüsant der Bericht des polit. Vertrauten König Georg V., Lord Stamfordham, der am 2. September 1929 an den Vizekönig schrieb: »Oh, was für ein Lärm wird wegen Ihrer Erklärung über den gleichberechtigten Dominion-Status gemacht und wieviel wird in beiden Häusern des Parlamentes darüber geredet. Ich habe Reading, Birkenhead, Parmoor und Passfield sprechen hören. Der arme, alte Parmoor — er war völlig durcheinander und sprach von Ramsay MacDonald als von >Lord MacDonald< und mehrmals sagte er >Ihrer Majestät Regierung<, was mich zutiefst gerührt hat, da ich mir vorstellen kann, daß seine Gedanken ebenso wie meine, oft zu jenen vielgeschmähten Viktorianischen Zeiten zurückwandern.« Harold Nicolson, Georg V., d. Übers. 1954 p. 550.
Mein Schüler Dietrich Klautke bereitet eine Dissertation über die britische Indienpolitik 1927–1947 und die Parteien vor. Ich verdanke ihm manche Hinweise.
Samuel Hoare, Neun bewegte Jahre, p. 43 f.
John Evelyn Wrench, Geoffrey Dawson and our times, 1955, p. 266 f. History of the Times, 1952, vol. II., p. 872 f.
Butler, Lord Lothian, p. 179 f.
Im Gespräch zu Thomas Jones, A Diary with letters 1931–1950, 1954, p. 29. In einer Ansprache am 4. Dez. 1934 an die Konservative Partei sagte Baldwin: “You must remember that in many parts of the Empire there is sympathy with the ideals of India... It is my considered judgement in all the changes and chances of this wide world to-day that you have a good chance of keeping the whole of that sub-continent of India in the Empire for ever. You have a chance, and a good chance, but I say to you that if you refuse her this opportunity, if you refuse it to her, you will infallibly lose India, whatever you do, before two generations are passed. That, to my mind, is the choice. Believing that, I can do no other than give you the advice I do ... so convinced am I that I am right in this matter — as convinced as some of my friends are that I am wrong — that if I stood alone I would put these views before you ... He reviewed the whole Indian question again over the radio on the 5th February, 1935, and reminded the critics of the Bill that if they argued, as they did, that Parliamentary government was not suited to the East, then the conclusion must be >that for a hundred years we have been on the wrong track in our Indian policy; that we should now reverse our steps and set out again in the direction of autocracy and despotism. Those who use this argument cannot pretend that they stand by the pledge we gave in the Preamble of the Act of 1919... In accordance with our historic policy and with the object of keeping our Empire together, we have given India certain pledges. Those pledges must be fulfilled!” aus: A. W. Baldwin, My father: The true story, p. 176 f. Im gleichen Sinne auch: Marquess of Zetland (Gouverneur Bengalens 1917–1922 u. Biograph Curions), Self-Government for India, in: Foreign Affairs Okt. 1930: “But whether the extreme nationalists come to London in October or whether they do not, matters cannot rest where they are. Great Britain is pledged to go forward with an experiment fraught with momentous consequences, whether for better or for worse, to peoples numbering not less than one fifth of the human race; and she cannot now withdraw from the furrow which she has set forth to plough.” P. 12. Dergl. After the India Conference, in: Foreign Affairs, April 1932.
The Indian tragedy 19. 4. 1930. Gandhi »is a supreme symbol of the relentless urge for unimpeded self-expression, which is the strength and force of awakened India«. Die Inder erwarteten eine baldige Einlösung des Versprechens von 1917 und seien zu Recht miß-trauisch.
«The proceedings of the Round-Table-Conference have awakened people in this country to the dominating fact that, with whatever transitional safeguards you please, real responsibility in the Central Government, as in the Provinces, is demanded by all shades of »moderate« Indian opinion, without distinction of race, faith or caste, and is also supported by the rulers of the States. It is a demand which the great majority of British citizens both in this country and in the Commonwealth as a whole are disposed to recognise as just in principle. We have no interests, moral or material, in India which would warrantably lead us to contemplate, as an alternative to co-operating in the realization of that demand, the intolerable prospect of repression and revolution which refusal of it would inevitably entail. With all respect to Mr. Churchill, who has suggested that »it is not yet too late ... The key to Indian government ist still in our hands«, we venture to assert that there can be no going back. This country has heard the case stated in the capital of the Empire by India’s spokesmen, and the opinion of the country has conceded the essential principles for which they asked. The rest is for the lawyer or the expert. The Indian Empire is ended, the day of the Indian Federated Commonwealth has begun. It is useless for Mr. Churchill to moan for the past.” The Conference on the future, 24. Jan. 1931, Nr. 4561 p. 155.
Ansprache am Radio 1. 1. 1935 in: Evolution in India, p. 316.
So schreibt Philip Kerr — typisch britisch — an Dawson: “To take responsibility of government which converts every Radical into more or less a Conservative ...” Butler, Lothian, p. 182.
H. of C., 7.11.1929, vol. 231, S. 1312 f.
H. of G., 11. 2. 1935, vol. 297, S. 1719/1722. Ähnlich auch Amery: “Undoubtedly the conditions of India are not such as to make equal status possible to-day”... aber “... recognition of equality in co-operation within the British Empire as between Asia and Europe may mean a great deal not only to the British Empire but to the world.” 5. 6. 1935, zit. My political Life III, 108.
In einer Rede vor der »European Association« in Calcutta sagte er: “However emphatically we condemn the civil disobedience movement... whatever powers we find necessary to take to combat it, so long as it persists we should... make a profound mistake if we under-esti-mate the genuine and powerful feeling of nationalism that is to-day animating much of Indian thought. And for this no simple, complete, or permanent cure has ever been or can be found in strong action by the Government.” Times, weekly ed. 1. 1. 1931.
Z. B. Lord Meston, Nationhood for India (Vorträge in den USA), 1931.
2. B. der Bericht aus Indien, in: Round Table XII, 1922.
Kothermund, p. 157.
Hoare, Neun bewegte Jahre, p. 79, Nicholson, Georg V., p. 552.
Das, India under Morley and Minto, p. 70.
P. VI
Im Memorandum der European Association heißt es u. a., das Ministerium für Polizei dürfe an Inder erst übergeben werden, wenn »local European opinion considers this safe« (!), p. 249.
“If these 300 millions had been really determinded against British rule, they would never have accepted it.” P. 259.
Indien gleich zu behandeln wie die weißen Dominions wäre »absurd, and nothing of the kind has ever promised ... Dominions are bound by those loyalities of blood, language, religion, history and literature to the mother country«. P. 283, 285.
P. 319.
Vgl auch der Leserbrief eines andern pensionierten ICS-Mannes als Antwort auf den Artikel »The Indian Tragedy« im Spectator (vgl. p. 88 Anm. 144), 3. 5. 1930. Die jüngeren und aktiven Mitglieder des ICS waren zweifellos aufgeschlossener. Über ihre Position, Schwierigkeiten und geistige Haltung ausgezeichnet Philip Woodruff (Philip Mason), The men who ruled India, vol. II, 1954, p. 220, 244 f.
Birkenhead, p. 518. Eine ähnliche Position vertritt Lord Winterton (konservativer Unterstaatssekretär für Indien 1922–1929) in einem Brief an die »Times«: es gelte eine Unterscheidung zwischen Responsible Government und Dominionstatut, wie Süd-Rhodesien zeige. “As a result of the Imperial Conference of 1926 Dominion-status has attained a very special meaning which is inapplicable in all particulars to India. Dominion-status obviously confers on the countries within the Empire which possess it both the right and the obligation to undertake their own military defence. Should India, as a result of the amendment of the Government of India Act receive Dominion Status, it will involve the withdrawal of the British Army; if, on the other hand, Parliament decides to grant a further or full measure of Responsible Government, the British Army can remain in India... Before the advent of the present administration the phrase ‘Dominion Status’ was carefully avoided when reiterated promises were made that the British goal in India was Responsible Government within the Empire.” Weekly Edition 24. 7. 1930, p. 120.
H. of L., 5. 11. 1929, vol. 175, S. 404 f.
»To me it has been a matter of deep regret that the term has ever been used in relation to India.. .There is no accepted definition of Dominion status... I should have preferred to put it in this way, that the goal that we have in view as the ultimate in this way, that the goal that we have in view as the ultimate state of things in India is one by which all Indian affains should, so far as is compatible with the contiuance of British India as part of the British Empire, be managed by Indians in India with the very minimum of interference by Parliament here... The existence of Indian States and Indian Princes creates a state of affairs so entirely different from that which obtains in any part of the Empire.” H. of L. 5. 11. 1929, vol. 75, S. 410.
“Take the hackneyed phrase ‘Dominion Status’. During the Great War India obtained Dominion-status so far as rank, honour and ceremony were concerned. The representatives of the Government of India attended the Imperial War Conference, they attended the Peace Conference, and they are included among the British Dominions who serve on the League of Nations... but I did not contemplate India having the same constitutional rights and system as Canada in any period which we could foresee... I do not admit that the sense in which the expression ‘Dominion Status’ was used 10 or 15 years ago implied Dominion structure or Dominion rights.... I do not admit that it means structure or rights. The word ‘status’ means rank — not necessarily rights or structure.” H. of C., 3. 12. 1931, vol. 260, S. 1287/8.
“... the moment you set up responsible Government at the Centre, you begin to make effective the transfer of sovereignty.” H. of C., 11. 2. 1935, vol. 297, S. 1655.
India Speeches, 1931, p. 40.
H. of C., a.a.O., S. 1653.
S. 1651.
India Speeches, S. 87 f.
A.a.O., p. 47.
Annual Conference 1918, p. 64 f.
“The conference therefore demands the full and frank application of this principle (democratic self-determination) in the reorganisation of the Government of India that is now in progress, in such a way as to satisfy all the legitimate aspirations of the Indian people; it asks that corresponding measures may be taken in Burma, Ceylon, and other parts of the British Empire in which Self-Government is demanded. It emphatically protests against the militarist and repressive methods adopted by the present British Government, and expresses its sympathy with the peoples now held in subjection. It denies the right of any Government to govern a country against the will of the majority; and while expressing the hope that all the peoples of the British Empire will prefer to remain as parts of that Empire so soon as their aspirations have been dealt with in a thoroughly conciliatory manner by the granting of adequate measures of autonomy, it declares that the final decision must rest with those people themselves.” Annual Conference, 1920, p. 156.
Zum Beispiel Annual Conference 1927: “We reaffirm the right of the Indian peoples to full self-government and self-determination, and therefore the policy of the British Government should be one of continous cooperation with the Indian people, with the object of establishing India, in the earliest moment, and by her consent, as an equal partner with the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.” Ähnlich auch im Parteiprogramm, Labour and the Nation, 1928, p. 43.
H. of C., 5. 12. 1919, vol. 122, S. 817.
H. of C., 22. 5. 1919, vol. 116, S. 671. Annual Conference 1920, p. 157 f.
“I would dearly like to be able to withdraw the English tissue from Bengal and give the Swarajists Swaraj there just for the fun of seeing results.” Priester (Gandhi) und Advokaten könnten nicht regieren! Brief an H. G. Wells vom 25. 4. 1925, Letters and selected writings, ed. M. Olivier, 1948, p. 157.
Brief vom 1. 7. 1924 an Holmes-Laski Letters, 1916–1935, ed. M. de Wolfe Howe, 1953, p. 628.
Staatssekretär Wedgwood Benn: “We are entering upon a new era, we are attempting to enter what may be the greatest chapter in the history of the British Commonwealth, namely a free and voluntary association of a great self-respecting nation in partnership with the British Commonwealth for the promotion of the good of the world. We have tried to prove the sincerity of our faith when we say that we desire to see India reach Dominion Status ...” H. of C., 18. 12. 1929, vol. 233, S. 1555–1558.
Mrs. Besant protestiert, daß die Reformen von 1919 noch keine verantwortliche Regierung enthalten. Ph. Snowden (Finanzminister 1924) spreche vom Hunger in Osteuropa, nicht aber von Indien: “... give them freedom and their people would not starve”, Annual Conference 1920, p. 152.
Bereits im Juni 1917 schreibt er an einen indischen Nationalisten: “The British Government should lay it down that Colonial Home Rule is the end they have in view, though it may taken even fifty years to complete the process. They should lay down the stages and the dates ...” Josia C. Wedgwood, Memoirs of a fighting life, 1940, p. 130.
Die »Socialist Review« bezeichnet z. B. die Indienpolitik der Labourregierung als »the one great failure in the Labour Government«. Richard W. Lyman, The first Labour Government, 1924, o. J. (1957), p. 215.
Kommunistischen Akzent hat John Beauchamp, British Imperialism in India, prepared of the Labour Research Department 1934, wo Gandhi und die anderen nationalistischen Führer als Kollaborateure der Bourgeoisie und als Verräter geschildert werden.
Annual Conference 1930, p. 216.
A.a.O., p. 218.
Holmes-Laski Letters, p. 1261, 1264. Vgl. auch Beatrice Webb, Diaries 1924–1932, ed. M. Cole, 1956, p. 266: “For Dominion Status has been promised to India over and over again during and after the Great War. But in how near or how distant a future? Next year or fifty years hence? And how can any one kind of uniform status be given to the whole of India, broken up as it is, into native states and British India, with different races, languages, castes and religions. The problem seems to be to put the several ruling native cliques and communities into the position of refusing instead of claiming powers from the British Government; to make those who claim to govern India on behalf of the people of India distrust their capacity to combine in order to do it so as to delay Self-Government until some sort of common will has been evolved.”
Vgl. Annual Conference 1932, p. 95, mit der Resolution Landsburys, p. 178 f., und Annual Conference 1933, p. 79. Als jedoch auf dem Parteikongreß 1934 Krishna Menon eine Resolution zugunsten eines »sofortigen« Responsible government und einer verfassungsgebenden Versammlung fordert, lehnt Henderson entschieden ab und verweist auf die Resolution von 1933. Die Labour-Thesen gut im Artikel: »The future of India« (Attlee), in: New Statesman and Nation, 25. 3. 1933, p. 377 f., und »The India Report«, a.a.O., 24. 11. 1934, p. 744 f. Entsprechend auch Jones Morgan MP, Wither India? Labour Party Pamphlet, Februar 1935.
H. of C., 6. 2.1935, vol. 297, S. 1167 f.; 4. 6.1935, vol. 302, S. 1824 f.
P. 245 f. Dazu auch: As it happened, 1954, p. 64 f.
Man lese den höchst bemerkenswerten Briefwechsel zwischen Lord Lothian und Nehru, 31. 12. 1935/17. 1. 1936, in: Nehru, A bunch of old letters, 1958, p. 217 ff.
Neben bereits erwähnten Äußerungen sei R. Coupland genannt, der die Indienverfassung von 1935 als »penultimate stage« vor dem vollen Dominionstatus bezeichnet und mit Kanada 1868 und Südafrika 1910 parallel setzt; p. 115, 157. Indien als Dominion »would mean that its circumference has been extended beyond the world of European race and civilization to embrace a part of Asia — that all the gulf which nature set between them and all that has done to deepen it has not prevented their final in a common cause«. The Empire in these days, 1935, p. 135. Ebenfalls: The British Empire, RIIA, 1937, p. 132.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1966 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
von Albertini, R. (1966). Dominionstatus für Indien (1917–1939)?. In: Dekolonisation. Beiträge zur Kolonial- und Überseegeschichte, vol 1. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-98922-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-98922-2_4
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-322-98233-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-322-98922-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive