Nationalism and indigenous resistance between 1914 and 1947 challenged British imperial control, fostering political identity and laying foundations for decolonisation movements across the empire.
Relations Between British Authorities and Indigenous Peoples
Evolving Imperial Relations
British imperial policy during 1914–1947 was marked by a complex mix of paternalism, economic control, and political repression. While the British claimed to bring modernity and stability, indigenous peoples increasingly experienced exploitation, racial hierarchies, and denial of self-determination.
Indirect rule was common in Africa, relying on local elites to administer British policies. While it preserved local structures, it entrenched inequalities and obstructed democratic development.
In India and parts of the Middle East, Britain imposed direct governance, leading to deeper resentment due to exclusion from political power and arbitrary suppression of dissent.
Relations varied regionally, but a common thread was the marginalisation of indigenous voices in governance and their mobilisation against imperial dominance.
Wartime Contributions and Disillusionment
Indigenous populations across the empire contributed significantly to both world wars, offering manpower and resources.
In return, many hoped for greater autonomy or steps toward independence.
However, post-war Britain prioritised imperial stability over reform, disillusioning many and stoking nationalist movements.
Localised Protest and Conflict
India: Amritsar Massacre and Non-Cooperation
India emerged as a focal point of resistance:
Amritsar Massacre (1919): British troops, under General Dyer, opened fire on a peaceful protest in Jallianwala Bagh, killing over 300 and wounding over 1,000.
This act of violence shocked the Indian populace and international observers, galvanising national sentiment.
Non-Cooperation Movement (1920–22): Led by Mahatma Gandhi, this movement called for Indians to:
Boycott British goods, titles, schools, and law courts.
Withdraw from government posts and the British educational system.
Embrace Swaraj (self-rule) through nonviolent means.
The movement drew massive support but was suspended after the Chauri Chaura incident, where protesters killed policemen, underscoring the tensions within nonviolent resistance.
Palestine: Arab Revolt (1936–1939)
British Mandate Palestine saw mounting tensions due to Jewish immigration and land acquisition, facilitated by British policies under the Balfour Declaration (1917).
The Arab Revolt was a nationalist uprising by Palestinian Arabs against:
British colonial rule.
Increasing Jewish immigration perceived as threatening to Arab identity and land ownership.
The British response included:
Harsh military repression, mass arrests, and execution of rebels.
Use of collective punishment, home demolitions, and censorship.
Although militarily suppressed, the revolt underscored the fragility of British control and laid the groundwork for continued resistance.
Egypt: The Wafd Party and Political Nationalism
After nominal independence in 1922, Britain continued to control key areas of Egyptian governance, particularly the Suez Canal.
Wafd Party: A secular nationalist party, led by Saad Zaghloul, championed:
Full independence.
Constitutional reform.
Mass mobilisation of the Egyptian public.
In the 1919 Revolution, widespread demonstrations erupted after the British exiled Wafd leaders.
Britain responded with military force, killing hundreds.
This led to limited concessions: a new constitution (1923) and partial autonomy.
However, Britain retained influence through control over defence, foreign affairs, and military presence, breeding long-term resentment.
Africa: Varied and Fragmented Resistance
Resistance in Africa during this period was often more fragmented due to differing colonial strategies and ethnic diversity.
Labour protests and tax revolts erupted across colonies such as Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya.
These included strikes by railway and dock workers, and protests against forced labour and taxation.
Religious movements sometimes doubled as resistance efforts, blending Christian or Islamic traditions with anti-colonial messages.
Examples include:
The Aba Women’s Riots (1929) in Nigeria – a large-scale female-led protest against British-imposed taxation.
Harry Thuku’s movement in Kenya, protesting land alienation and pass laws.
These localised expressions of resistance reflected growing awareness of injustice and the emergence of proto-nationalist consciousness.
Emergence of Colonial Identities and Political Nationalism
Formation of Political Consciousness
By the 1930s and 1940s, new political identities began forming across the empire:
Western-educated elites in India, West Africa, and the Caribbean developed anti-imperial ideologies, influenced by liberal democratic and socialist thought.
Newspapers, schools, and religious institutions became critical in shaping nationalist discourse.
Many colonies saw the rise of political associations, trade unions, and cultural groups expressing indigenous values and resistance to colonial hierarchies.
India’s Leadership in Political Nationalism
The Indian National Congress (INC), under leaders such as Gandhi, Nehru, and Patel, transformed into a mass nationalist movement, promoting:
Nonviolent resistance.
Political self-determination.
Economic self-sufficiency (e.g. spinning cloth to boycott British textiles).
The movement inspired other colonial territories to pursue political identity and challenge imperial dominance.
Identity Movements in Africa and the Middle East
In West Africa, thinkers like Nnamdi Azikiwe (Nigeria) and Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana) advocated for:
Pan-Africanism.
End of racial segregation.
Native self-rule and education.
In Egypt and Palestine, Islamic and Arab identity were central to resistance.
These movements often blurred the lines between nationalist and religious aims, especially in opposing Western secularism and colonial policies.
British Responses: Repression, Concession, and Constitutional Change
Mechanisms of Repression
The British Empire relied heavily on military force and legal restrictions to suppress dissent:
Sedition laws, press censorship, emergency powers, and mass arrests were common.
In India, the Rowlatt Acts (1919) extended wartime restrictions into peacetime, permitting detention without trial.
In Africa, protests were often put down with brutality, limiting the formation of sustained political movements.
Repression, however, often fuelled further opposition and hardened nationalist resolve.
Constitutional Reforms and Concessions
Faced with growing resistance, the British attempted to placate nationalist aspirations through limited reforms:
India:
Government of India Act (1919): Introduced a dyarchy system, giving limited self-rule in provincial areas.
Government of India Act (1935):
Expanded the franchise.
Allowed Indian ministers to control more departments.
Served as a precursor to full self-rule but stopped short of granting independence.
Africa:
Small-scale reforms offered token African representation in legislative councils (e.g. Gold Coast, Nigeria).
These reforms were often tightly controlled and lacked real authority, causing frustration among African elites.
Palestine:
The 1939 White Paper promised restrictions on Jewish immigration and a path to Palestinian self-government—though seen as too late and insincere by both Arab and Jewish communities.
Egypt:
Despite formal independence in 1922, the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty reinforced British control over defence and the Suez Canal.
This partial sovereignty created a nationalist backlash, particularly among youth and the military.
The Dilemma of Imperial Control
Britain’s dual approach—granting superficial political concessions while retaining real power—often backfired:
Indigenous leaders saw reforms as insufficient and evidence of imperial insincerity.
The lack of genuine dialogue fostered radicalisation, particularly in the 1930s and 1940s.
The empire’s inflexibility in adjusting to nationalist demands, combined with economic strains and wartime upheavals, set the stage for future decolonisation.
These developments between 1914 and 1947 marked a turning point. Though Britain retained control, the ideological foundations of empire were eroding, and nationalist movements were poised to intensify after WWII.
FAQ
Indigenous women played vital, though often underrepresented, roles in anti-imperial resistance. In Nigeria, women led the Aba Women’s War (1929), protesting colonial taxation and economic marginalisation. The uprising involved tens of thousands of women who organised market boycotts, marched on colonial offices, and demanded accountability from both British administrators and local male chiefs appointed by the British. In India, figures like Sarojini Naidu and Kasturba Gandhi participated in major movements such as the Salt March and civil disobedience campaigns. They mobilised female participation, transforming nationalist resistance into a broader social movement. Egyptian women, inspired by the Wafd movement, staged demonstrations and published nationalist literature demanding both national independence and gender reform. While colonial authorities often dismissed these efforts as secondary or domestic in scope, their impact was profound in galvanising mass mobilisation and legitimising women's political roles. Women's activism thus added a gendered dimension to nationalism, challenging both imperialism and traditional patriarchal norms.
Education was a double-edged sword in colonial societies. On one hand, the British introduced Western-style schooling to create a class of local administrators loyal to the empire. On the other hand, this Western-educated elite often became the backbone of nationalist movements. Educated individuals in India, Egypt, and West Africa were exposed to Enlightenment ideals, liberal democracy, and concepts of self-determination. This intellectual exposure created a sense of political consciousness and often led to the formation of nationalist parties, newspapers, and political clubs. For example, in India, graduates from British universities or colonial institutions like Presidency College became vocal critics of British rule. In West Africa, figures like Nnamdi Azikiwe used their education to campaign for reforms through writing and speeches. Additionally, missionary schools often instilled a sense of cultural pride and historical awareness that conflicted with colonial ideologies of European superiority. Thus, education unintentionally equipped indigenous leaders with the tools to critique and oppose empire.
World War II significantly accelerated nationalist momentum across the British Empire. Firstly, many colonies were drawn directly into the war effort, with soldiers and resources extracted from India, Africa, and the Caribbean. This heightened expectations of political reward and autonomy in return. Secondly, wartime strains revealed the vulnerability of the British Empire, both economically and militarily. The fall of Singapore in 1942, for instance, shattered the myth of British invincibility in Asia. Thirdly, the war catalysed political radicalisation; for example, the Quit India Movement (1942) emerged during wartime, demanding immediate independence. Meanwhile, exposure to global anti-fascist rhetoric and American and Soviet critiques of imperialism undermined the moral legitimacy of empire. African soldiers returning from war brought back new political awareness and frustration with racial inequality. Wartime promises of reform, such as those in the Atlantic Charter (1941), clashed with post-war realities, pushing many to reject imperial rule entirely. Thus, WWII served as a catalyst for widespread nationalist mobilisation.
Religion was a powerful mobilising force in many nationalist movements, providing both ideological frameworks and institutional support. In India, Hindu and Islamic identities played key roles in shaping responses to British rule. While Gandhi promoted a syncretic vision of Indian nationalism rooted in spiritual principles, more radical groups like the Hindutva movement or Muslim League pursued communal political agendas, sometimes clashing over visions for post-colonial governance. In the Middle East, Islamic identity was central to Arab resistance in Palestine, where leaders framed opposition to British policies and Zionist immigration as both political and religious duty. In Africa, Christian missions were paradoxically both colonial tools and sites of dissent. Many African clergy and converts began to challenge the colonial state using Christian moral arguments, and independent African churches became rallying points for resistance. Religious identity thus acted not only as a cultural adhesive but also provided moral legitimacy and organisational structure for anti-imperial resistance.
The British significantly expanded and modernised their colonial policing and intelligence apparatus in response to growing resistance. Colonial governments developed specialised intelligence bureaus to monitor political activists, censor publications, and infiltrate nationalist organisations. In India, for example, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) kept extensive files on political leaders, conducted surveillance, and intercepted correspondence. In Palestine, Special Night Squads and the use of informants were central to counter-insurgency efforts during the Arab Revolt. Across Africa, colonial police forces were increasingly militarised, often deployed to break strikes, disperse protests, and detain agitators without trial under emergency ordinances. British administrators also coordinated intelligence sharing across colonies to prevent cross-border mobilisation. These methods enabled short-term control but often deepened resentment among indigenous populations, as heavy-handed tactics revealed the coercive core of colonial governance. Despite reforms, the police remained instruments of repression rather than justice, shaping a legacy of mistrust and resistance that continued into the decolonisation era.
Practice Questions
To what extent did British responses to indigenous resistance between 1914 and 1947 strengthen nationalist movements across the empire?
British responses often strengthened nationalist movements by revealing imperial weaknesses and injustices. Brutal crackdowns, like the Amritsar Massacre or repression of the Arab Revolt, alienated moderate voices and radicalised opposition. Meanwhile, half-hearted concessions such as the Government of India Acts appeared insincere and failed to satisfy demands for genuine autonomy. In Africa, minimal reforms frustrated elites seeking representation. These actions reinforced the belief that independence was only achievable through mass mobilisation, thus fuelling nationalist sentiment. Therefore, British repression and reluctant reform largely intensified rather than diminished anti-imperial resistance across the empire during this period.
‘Indigenous resistance between 1914 and 1947 was primarily shaped by local grievances rather than a shared anti-imperial ideology.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Local grievances were crucial in driving resistance movements, such as taxation protests in Nigeria, land disputes in Palestine, and repression in Egypt. However, these were increasingly embedded within broader anti-imperial ideologies. In India, Gandhi’s campaigns linked economic and cultural grievances to national liberation, inspiring others across the empire. Similarly, Pan-African and Arab nationalist thought connected regional struggles to global calls for self-determination. While local contexts shaped the form of resistance, they were often underpinned by a growing awareness of imperial injustice. Therefore, although local grievances initiated resistance, a shared anti-imperial ideology significantly influenced its evolution and coherence.
