Why did Britishers leave India ?

Why did  Britishers  withdraw  from  India  ? 

- - -  -  -   -  -   -   -    -   - -

Introduction 

The national security adviser claimed other day that  India  got independence because of the role  of  Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and  INA. This is simplification of our freedom struggle that was  waged by lakhs of  freedom fighters  incessantly for 90 years.  Thousands of people got  killed  , butchered and  maimed by the British imperialists. A deeper  analysis  is warranted as to  why  Britishers  left India  ? 

The withdrawal of the British from India in 1947 was not an isolated event but the culmination of internal pressures, external geopolitical shifts, and the systematic erosion of the pillars of colonial governance. Following factors may be ascribed to  : -

I. The Surge of  Nationalism

The most potent internal factor was the rise of a structured and mass-based nationalist movement.

 * Awakening and Early Phase: Influenced by 19th-century social reformers like Raja Rammohan Ray, Swami Vivekananda, and Jyotiba Phule, a sense of "Rashtrabodh" (national consciousness) was ignited .The formation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 provided an all-India character to this sentiment .

 * The Gandhian Era: The transition from the "Protest, Prayer, and Petition" phase of the Moderates to the mass movements led by Mahatma Gandhi changed the nature of the struggle. Movements like the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920), Civil Disobedience (1930), and Quit India (1942) transformed nationalism into a household sentiment, making India ungovernable for the British .

 * Erosion of Colonial Authority: By the 1940s, the "Quit India" spirit had reached such depths that British officials found it nearly impossible to collect taxes or enforce law, as common citizens were now willing to face the utmost sacrifices for "Swaraj" .

II. The Crisis of Colonial Instruments

The British Raj rested on three pillars: the Civil Services, the Police, and the Army. By 1947, all three had weakened.

 * Indianization of Services: Post-1919, the bureaucracy saw a significant influx of Indians. By 1947, over half of the District Magistrates and SPs were Indians, whose loyalties were increasingly leaning toward the nationalist cause rather than the Crown.

 * The Military Blow: The trials of the Indian National Army (INA) officers at the Red Fort served as a catalyst, shifting the loyalty of the Indian soldiers within the British Indian Army . This culminated in the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946 in Bombay, involving 20,000 sailors  Once the British realized they could no longer rely on the Indian sword to maintain Indian subjection, their exit became inevitable.

III. Impact of World War second and Economic Exhaustion

World War II acted as a catalyst that bankrupt the British Empire both financially and militarily.

 * Economic Ruin: Although Britain emerged victorious, its economy was devastated. The loss of merchant shipping and the depletion of foreign assets made the maintenance of a distant colony like India an unbearable financial burden .

 * Shift in Global Power: The war ended the era of British naval supremacy, replaced by American air and atomic power. Britain’s focus shifted toward the economic reconstruction of Western Europe (Marshall Plan) rather than managing overseas territories .

IV. External Geopolitical Pressures

 * The Role of the USA: Under President Roosevelt, the US pushed for the principle of "Self-Determination" as outlined in the Atlantic Charter . The US also desired access to the vast Indian market, which was then restricted by British imperial preferences .

 * Change in British Leadership: The 1945 UK elections saw the defeat of the imperialist Winston Churchill and the rise of Clement Attlee’s Labour Party. Attlee's government prioritized domestic social welfare and decolonization over maintaining a crumbling empire .

V. The Strategic Nature of the Exit

The British exit was also marked by a strategic "Imperial Interest." The partition of India and the creation of Pakistan were partly intended to maintain a foothold in the region, ensuring Karachi's port facilities and a recruitment base for future interests in the Middle East .

Conclusion

The British did not leave India out of mere benevolence. It was a calculated retreat necessitated by the collapse of their administrative machinery, the rebellion within the armed forces, and a shattered post-war economy. The relentless pressure from the Indian masses, guided by stalwarts like Gandhi,Nehru,  Bose and Patel, ensured that the "Jewel in the Crown" became a liability that the British could no longer afford to hold .

Why Rajendra 1st Chola , not Chatrapati Shivaji, can be called the father of indian Navy ?

Was Chatrapati Shivaji was the father of the modern Navy in india ? 

                                                      The Great Chatrapati Shivaji 

Rajendra 1st Chola (1014 to 1044) was the great warrior . During his reign , the Chola power reached at its zenith.Military conquest reached to the eastern india in so far as his army crossed the Ganga river and defeated the Pala king, Mahipal. In addition to the military prowess, Rajendra Chola also established naval supremacy in the bay of Bengal and South East Asia . Both Pandyan and Chera navies were destroyed, therby establishing Chola supremacy in the eastern and western coast of india.. . During his reign , Bay of Bengal was converted into the Chola lake. Srilanka was subjugated and it remained under Chola rule for the next 50 years. Similarly, his naval expeditions reached to south east Asia . Shri Vijay kingdom and its Sailendra dynasty capitulated. Kadram (Keddah) also surrendered to him. Almost all south east Asian countries had come under his toes. Not only that , he established maritime trade relations with China . A Chola ambassador was stationed at Chinese Court. The strait of Malacca, the gateway to East Asia was completely under his control . To sum up , no indigenous power so much dominated the indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal as the mighty Cholas did in the mediaeval india. The Chola naval power was aggressive. Its main purpose was to establish extensive trade relations with south east Asian countries and China . 

                                               The great Rajendra 1st Chola 

On the other hand , the great Chatrapati Shivaji is said to be the father of modern Navy in india . However, Navy under Shivaji was defensive. He made Navy effective in guarding coastal regions.Navy was supported by various forts on the coastal regions. But his Navy was not strong enough to flush out western powers from deep sea . According to the historian, B K Apte , Navy under Shivaji was no match to the British Navy in the deep sea. It is worth noting that while Shivaji looted twice Surat, the Mughal depot, in 1664 and 1770 , he didn't dare to loot British factory located at Surat . Nor he ever tried to capture Goa , Daman and Diu from the Portuguese who had entrenched themselves since 1509 . Maratha Navy was adept in protecting the coastal regions because of their better knowledge of the coasts and creeks. But in the deep sea , Maratha Navy could not match European powers. During the Peshwa rule , no adequate attention was paid on the advancement of Maratha Navy. That's why, the British could be able to establish their rule over in the 18th century on account of their naval superiority. 

To sum up, While Navy under Rajendra Chola was assertive, conquering large tracts of land in South East Asia and fostering trade relations, Shivaji 's Navy was structured to protect the western coast of India  so that its territorial integrity could  be  safeguarded . Maratha Navy was basically defensive in nature. 

 

Non-alignment is the foundation of India’s foreign policy

 

What is non-alignment?

1. It means keeping away from two warring alliances after the end of the second world war. It should be noted that after the Second World War, the world was divided into two warring camps- the capitalist countries were led by the US and the communist countries were led by the Soviet Union. The US forged a NATO military alliance by bringing together countries of Western Europe against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union on the other hand, made the Warsaw Pact with Eastern European Countries.  The two camps always sought to have military superiority over others. Thus ensued the cold war. This cold war continued till the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The newly independent countries decided to keep away from either of the military blocs to safeguard their hard earned political sovereignty. Thus non-alignment stood for keeping away from military entanglement of all types. It stood for refusal to allow military bases to any super-power on their territories. 

2. On the positive note, the non-alignment stands to protect the national interest of a country, to promote world peace. It is not a policy of sitting on the fence or indifferent to the burning issues of international politics. Rather it seeks active cooperation and mutual friendship between nations of both the blocs. 

3. After getting independence, India was the first country to pronounce non-alignment as the cornerstone of its foreign policy. Thus, India decided not to join either of the bloc headed by the US or the Soviet Union. 

Special features of non-alignment

1. It stands  against status quo situations in international politics. 

2. It opposes colonialism, imperialism, racial discrimination, neo colonialism and apartheid. 

3. It stands against military alliances.

4. It rejects the concept of superiority of super powers 

5. It advocates sovereign equality of all states 

6. It encourages friendly relations among countries 

7. It advocates peaceful settlement of international disputes and rejects the use of force.

8. It favours complete destruction of nuclear weapons and pleaded for comprehensive disarmament. 

9. It supports all efforts to strengthen the United Nations

10. It stands for new international economic order bereft of injustice and imbalance in international relations

11. It stands for strategic autonomy for countries in their relation with other countries. 

12. Above all it stood for equality among countries and free decision making to subserve their national interests. 

The difference between non-alignment and neutrality 

1. While neutrality is a legal status of a country during war when a country does not take part in conflicts and abstains from supporting either side, non-alignment as a foreign policy approach is not legally bound to stay away from conflicts. A non-aligned country retains freedom to take position on issues based upon merit. Thus, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria are neutral states. A neutral state in no circumstances can participate in any armed conflict nor their territories can be used by belligerent powers. On the other hand, non-alignment is a broader concept. It can criticise or support super powers depending upon national interests. Thus, India criticised the combined attack of  Israel, Britain and France on Egypt in 1956 but did not call for the Soviet withdrawal from Hungary. Similarly, in 1979 India condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It also criticised the US attack on Vietnam and Iraq. Thus, non-aligned countries are free to take positions in international politics which may suit their national interests better. 

Why did India adopt non-alignment in its foreign policy after getting independence?

1. India wanted to have strategic autonomy in decision making so that its hard earned sovereignty could be preserved.

2. Because of the size, geo-political importance and contribution to civilisation, India could not be an appendage to either of the super powers. 

3. India wanted to have a positive role to play in international politics by reducing international tension, promoting peace and serving as a bridge between the two camps. 

4. India adopted a non-alignment policy so that its future role of an acknowledged great power was not compromised.

5. India could not join either of the power blocs because of the emotional and ideological reasons. It could not join western bloc because many of its member countries were ex-colonial powers and some of them still practiced racial discrimination. Moreover, India got freedom from British imperialism after the freedom struggle of more than 90 years.  On the other hand, it could not join the Soviet bloc because its ideology of communism was completely alien to Indian thinking and way of life. 

6. India wanted flexibility in its foreign policy. It did not want to be tied to the apron strings of another superpower. Thus, it wanted freedom in its foreign policy to decide every issue on its merit. 

7. The Indian economy was in shambles. The foreign domination for 200 years and the partition of India completely devastated its economy. India wanted speedy economic recovery. It needed foreign economic aid for its development. The non-alignment policy gave India an opportunity to get economic and technological aids from both the Soviet Union and the US. 

8. India stood for peaceful co-existence and toleration in international relations so that no third world war or any other war occurred in its vicinity. It wanted cordial relations with China. The policy of non-alignment suited to advance those above objectives.  

Critique of non-alignment policy 

1.   The non-alignment policy of India has been very much successful in preserving its strategic autonomy. India could protect its sovereignty and decision making power in a bipolar world. It adopted an independent foreign policy to suit its national interests. 

2. The non-alignment policy allowed India to receive economic aid and technical assistance from both the camps. Thus, while India received assistance for the Bhilai Steel Plant from the Soviet Union, it got economic as well as technical support from West Germany for the opening of Rourkela Steel Plant. Similarly, the US helped India in opening Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited at Bhopal. Britain helped India in founding Durgapur Steel Plant. In addition, the US helped India in machine making industries. By external support, India could make 73% of its industries on its own by 1980. This was a big achievement. 

3. The non-alignment policy elevated India’s international stature. It became the champion of the non-alignment movement.  The movement stood for peaceful co-existence,  disarmament and an equitable international order. Thus, NAM provided a platform for newly independent nations to assert their collective voice on a global forum. 

4. The non-alignment policy kept away India from any kind of entanglement in the military conflicts and proxy wars of the superpowers. Thus, it allowed India to focus on its internal challenges of nation building and poverty alleviation. 

5. However, the Sino-Indian War in 1962, Indo-Pakistan War in 1965, 1971 and 1999 exposed the limits of non-alignment policy. These wars demonstrated that the non-alignment policy did not guarantee the security of India. Secondly, critics also  argue that India’s non-alignment was often more of a rhetorical stance than a genuine non-alignment. For example, India opposes the UN forces led by the US crossing the 38th parallel and consistently pressed the ceasefire through the UN. When Britain and France joined Israel's attacks on Egypt during the Suez crisis, it was called a dastardly action. But when the Soviet Union intervened in Hungary, the Indian response was muted. India abstained from the UN resolution condemning Soviet actions. It opposed the Soviet intervention in principle and stopped short of calling for Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe. This position drew sharp criticism from Western Blocs. Similarly, the 1971 Indo-Soviet treaty of friendship and cooperation signed during the Bangladesh liberation war was seen by many critics as a clear sign of tilt towards the Soviet Union. This event highlighted that when faced with a critical security threat, India prioritised its national interest over the strict principles of non-alignment. 

6. Despite its role as a leader of third world countries, the non-aligned movement was largely ineffective in preventing or resolving regional conflicts among its members. The Iran-Iraq war, Arab Israel war or India-Pakistan border disputes or Thailand-Kampuchia border disputes are examples where the non-alignment movement failed to play a decisive role.     

Relevance of non-alignment policy in the post-cold war situation

1. After the end of the cold war because of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, a unipolar world order emerged. The United States remained the only super-power. However, the emerging China gave a challenge to the US so much so that it is now the second largest economy of the world with $19 trillion in nominal GDP while in terms of purchasing power parity, it surged ahead of the US. In addition, Japan, Germany and India have emerged economic giants. So the world has turned into a multi-polar world.  The question arises as to what is the relevance of India’s non-alignment policy in the multipolar world ? It should be noted that there were three objectives of non-alignment policy. They were strategic autonomy in foreign policy decision making, getting economic and technological aid from different developed countries for economic development and aimed at establishing international peace and peaceful settlement of disputes. Since all these three objectives still exist, the relevance of non-alignment remains undisturbed. It should be noted that although cold war and bipolarity has ceased to exist, the relevance of non-alignment is still intact because of the three above-mentioned objectives of India’s foreign policy. 

2. Shifting of non-alignment by multi-alignment as the foundation of India’s foreign policy -In the changed scenario of a multi-polar world. India has shifted to multi-alignment without compromising its policy of non-alignment of not joining any bloc. The multi-alignment stands for working with many blocs at the same time. Thus, India has built issue based partnerships without binding itself permanently with any bloc or any country. For example, India is a member of QUAD along with USA, Japan, Australia for Indo-Pacific security, technology and defence exercises. India has a defence pact with Russia whereby it gets S-400 missiles, submarines and energy security. It has further made aid agreements with the EU, free  trade agreements with Great Britain. It has an alignment with West Asian Countries like Israel, UAE and USA called I2U2 for energy and connectivity projects. On the other hand, India is a member of BRICS and SCO, where it gets financial cooperation. This multi-alignment keeps India’s strategic autonomy intact, helps balance against the China-Pakistan axis without being locked in one alliance, provides access to technology, markets, defence equipment and energy security from multiple partners. Thus, the multi-alignment enhances India’s role as a bridge between global north and global south. The following flowchart clearly elucidates the multi-alignment of India. 

Conclusion

The cold war and bipolarity ended. The Soviet Union was dissolved. India began to reorient its foreign policy towards the West. It sought closer cooperation with the US. It also scaled back its engagement with the non-alignment movement, which it had championed during the cold war. India went ahead with multi-alignment with different powerful countries at the same time to subserve its national interest but it did not abandon strategic autonomy which is the hallmark of non-alignment policy. For example, even in the face of the threat by the US on account of ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. India continued to get concessional oils from Russia and after getting them refined, sold them in Europe, thereby fetching huge profit. Thus, the non-alignment policy of India outlived the cold war. It has been the policy of India to mediate between the conflicting positions of different countries by belonging to neither and this policy still continues in our foreign policy and so the policy of non-alignment still survives and evolved as multi-alignment. 

Is the Indian Economy a dead one ?

 Why is it in the news?

1. The US President, annoyed with the Indian Government, labelled both Indian and Russian economies as dead. The Government of India did not open the Indian farming sector and dairies for the US, fearing that the Indian farming community would not withstand the competition from the US agricultural goods and dairy products because 86% of Indian farmers are marginal farmers having less than two hectares of agricultural lands. The US farmers are holding huge chunks of land and getting huge subsidies from the US Government. 

Definition of a dead economy

1. An economy is said to be dead when there is no economic growth or when the economy of a country has started shrinking. For example, in 1995, the GDP of Japan at current prices was more than $5.5 trillion which came down to $4.187 trillion in 2025. So its economy slipped to fifth rank behind India. In contrast, in 1995 the GDP of India at current prices was $360 billion which rose to $4.187 trillion. Thus, India witnessed an increase of 11.6 times since 1995. If we compare other economies like China, Russia, the US, the UK, Germany, Argentina, Pakistan, we find that the growth rate of India since 1995 has been tremendous, only second to China. Again while in 1995, GDP of India was only 4.7% of the GDP of the US, it rose to 13.7% in 2025. The chart below suggests that the GDP growth of India, China and Russia witnessed a leap when compared with the GDP growth of the UK, Germany, and Japan. In 1995, the GDP of Japan was 72.6% of the GDP of the US which shrank to 13.7% of the US GDP in 2025.  On the other hand, the GDP of China was only 9.7% of the US GDP, rose to 63% of the US GDP in 2025. The chart below clearly suggests that the Indian Economy is increasing by leaps and bounds. It is estimated that by 2030, India would become the third largest economy of the world in nominal GDP terms, surpassing Germany. In absolute terms,according to the IMF,  Indian GDP would become $7 trillion in nominal terms and $22.2 trillion in PPP terms. 

	GDP current prices*		GDP in 2025 relative to GDP in 1995	GDP in 1995 as % of US GDP in 1995	GDP in 2025 as % of US GDP in 2025
	1995	2025
Argentina	288	684	2.4	3.8%	2.2%
China	738	19232	26.1	9.7%	63%
Germany	2595	4745	1.8	34%	15.6%
India	360	4187	11.6	4.7%	13.7%
Japan	5546	4186	0.8	72.6%	13.7%
Pakistan	99	373	3.8	1.3%	1.2%
Russian Federation	336	2076	6.2	4.4%	6.8%
UK	1345	3839	2.9	17.6%	12.6%
US	7640	30507	4	100%	100%
Pakistan data unavailable up to 2024. Source : IMF, The Indian Express Research * Billions of US dollars

2. India has become the fastest growing major economy of the world. Real GDP growth for the fiscal year 2024-25 stood at 6.5% and projections for 2025-26 from the IMF is 6.4%. This growth rate is significantly higher than that of the advanced economies and many of the emerging markets. In 2024-25, the growth rate of China was 5% and in 2025, the projected growth rate is 4%. Similarly, real growth rate of the US in 2024 was 2.8% and projected growth rate in 2025 is 1.7%, Russia 4.1% in 2024 and projected growth rate of 1.4% in 2025, the growth rate of UK was 1.2% and projected growth rate of 1% in 2025, in Canada the growth rate was 1.6% in 2024 and projected growth of around 1.8% of 2025. In Australia the growth rate was 1.75% in 2024 and projected growth rate 2.25% for 2025-26. The growth rate of Brazil was 3.4% in 2024 and the projected growth rate in 2025 as per the IMF estimates is 2%. 

Macro Economic Stability 

1. The fiscal deficit was brought down to 4.8% of GDP in 2024-25, which is to be reduced to 4.4% in 2025-26. Similarly, the retail inflation came down to 2.1%, the lowest since 2019. India’s exports have been increasing every year. It reached $850 billion in 2024-25. The foreign exchange reserves have reached around $700 billion, thereby providing a strong buffer against external shocks. Foreign direct investment inflows continue to be strong with cumulative inflows surpassing $ 1 trillion. 

2. One of the biggest achievements of the Indian economy is that in 1951, 70% people were below poverty line according to the estimates made by an economist Suresh Tendulkar. In 2022-23, only 5-6% people are now below poverty line. Instead of taking into calorie based matrices (2400 calories per day for rural and 2100 calories per day for urban), the Tendulkar committee took into account the monthly per capita consumption expenditure that includes food, education, health, clothing, electricity etc. The graph below would clearly elucidate the above point. 

 

Deep Concerns 

1. While India’s overall GDP has grown, its growth rate has lost momentum since 2011-12 and failed to replicate the spurt of fast growth at 8-9%. Since 2014 India’s growth rate has hovered around 6%. Thus we see that India has not achieved the pace of growth that China achieved from 1980 to 2010 at the average 10% growth rate. 

2. India’s share is just 1.8% of total global exports of merchandise goods and just 4.5% of total global exports of services. On the other hand, the share of Chinese exports of merchandise goods in world trade is around 14.6%. 

3. India’s farm economy is plagued with stress. 86 % of its farmers are practising subsistence agriculture and so they cannot compete with farmers of the US or developed countries who hold huge tracts of lands and get huge quantities of subsidies from their respective governments and that’s why the Indian Government wants to protect the farming and dairy sectors from the US and developed countries. 

4. It has been observed that since 2019-20 manufacturing sector has not registered a better growth rate as was expected. The CAGR was 4.04%, which was even lower than agriculture and allied activities at the CAGR of 4.72%. That’s why, the bulk of India’s population are still engaged in the rural and farming sectors because of the failure of manufacturing to absorb additional workforce employed in agricultural sectors. 

5. Despite the fast GDP growth in India, the growth has been skewed in favour of already developed states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. This led to the regional disparities in India so much so that the average per capita income of Bihar is ten times less than that of Goa. On the eve of independence, the per capita income of Bihar was just half that of Bombay presidency which consisted of the present day Maharashtra and Gujarat. After the lapse of 78 years, this gap further widened so much that the average per capita of Bihar is 5 times lower than that of Maharashtra. 

6. There are still 22% of the people living below the poverty line according to a World Bank estimate. Inequality has further widened so much so that 1% people from the top own 22% of the national income and 40% of the national wealth. The 20% people from the below have no worth durable assets.  As regards human development, the condition of health and education for common people is still a matter of concern. 

7. Despite the impressive GDP growth the economy is not generating enough jobs to absorb the young population so much so that the youth unemployment is at 15%.  More than 80% of the workforce are employed in low productivity informal sectors. This jobless growth is a major threat to social and economic stability. 

8. Uneven economic recovery - The benefits of growth have not percolated to the grassroot level. While the urban consumption is increasing by leaps and bounds, the rural consumption is lagging, thereby creating widening rural-urban divide. 

9. India requires $1.5 trillion for the development of infrastructure in coming years, the mobilisation of huge long term capital remains a great challenge for India. 

10. The US tariff of 50% on Indian exports in 2025 threatens IT services, textiles and manufacturing exports. The slow global growth below 3% further reduces exports of India. 

11. The ongoing US-China rivalry, Russian- Ukraine war and instability in West Asia may further cause disruption in global supply chains leading to the risk of energy security of India. 

12. In addition, rising US interest rates can trigger portfolio outflows thereby putting pressure on the rupee and foreign reserves. 

Way Forward 

1. India can take the following measures to spur its growth momentum. These are : 

A) export diversification so that heavy reliance on the US and China can be minimised. 

B) More emphasis should be given on renewable sources of energy in order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. 

C)MSMEs sectors should be further boosted so that more jobs are created. In addition, the manufacturing sector should get more priority and Make in India initiative and PLSI should get further filip so that India should produce more goods to be exported to the international market. Instead of depending upon domestic consumption, the export oriented growth would spur the manufacturing sector and its productivity.  

2. The recent declaration of reducing GST slabs at 5% and 18% would further lower prices of different commodities and these would spur consumer demand specially FMCG, durables and middle class consumption items. It would further ensure compliance and formalisation of the economy. A simplified tax regime will encourage domestic and foreign investment. 

Conclusion 

1. India is not a dead economy, instead it is the fastest moving economy in the world. In order to reap the maximum demographic dividend and to exploit the immense potential of the Indian economy, India must focus upon inclusive, employment intensive and sustainable growth. Instead of depending upon domestic consumption, India should strive for export oriented growth like China. This would further raise the production and productivity of the different sectors of the economy. However, the pertinent point is that the growth must percolate down to the grassroot levels.