Contradicting a general trend in history: Imperialism –> Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism is the application of Charles Darwin's scientific theories of evolution to modern social development. The theory related to the “struggle for existence” of humans: the “strong” will see their wealth, power, and cultural influence increase, while the weak are diminished.
The Case for India. The presidential address delivered by Annie Besant at the thirty-second Indian National Congress held at Calcutta, 26th December 1917
"But there are other causes which have been working in India, consequent on the British attitude against autocracy and in defence of freedom in Europe, while her attitude to India has, until lately, been left in doubt. Therefore I spoke of a splendid opportunity lost. India at first believed whole-heartedly that Great Britain was fighting for the freedom of all Nationalities. Even now, Mr. Asquith declared—in his speech in the House of Commons reported here last October, on the peace resolution of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald—that "the Allies are fighting for nothing but freedom, and, an important addition—for nothing short of freedom." In his speech declaring that Britain would stand by France in her claim for the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine, he spoke of "the intolerable degradation of a foreign yoke." Is such a yoke less intolerable, less wounding to self-respect here, than in Alsace-Lorraine, where the rulers and the ruled are both of European blood, similar in religion and habits? As the War went on, India slowly and unwillingly came to realise that the hatred of autocracy was confined to autocracy in the West, and that the degradation was only regarded as intolerable for men of white races; that freedom was lavishly promised to all except to India; that new powers were to be given to the Dominions, but not to India. India was markedly left out of the speeches of statesmen dealing with the future of the Empire, and at last there was plain talk of the White Empire, the Empire of the Five Nations, and the "coloured races" were lumped together as the wards of the White Empire, doomed to an indefinite minority."
Context: Annie Besant was a political activist and Indian independence leader. She joined the fight for Indian Home Rule during World War I, which was founded in April 1916. This movement was led by the All India Home Rule League, which demanded self-government and the status of a Dominion, meaning “autonomous communities within the British Empire”, which would eventually become fully sovereign from Great Britain.
Besant contends that Great Britain claimed to be fighting for “freedom of all nationalities”, but this freedom was promised to all Western countries, excluding India. India was explicitly addressed as an inferior race in speeches made by British statesmen such as Ramsay McDonald, who barely mentioned the future of India in his speeches dealing with the British Empire. In response to Ramsay Macdonald’s peace resolution in which he declared that Great Britain would stand by France, Besant asserts that the phrase “intolerable degradation of a foreign yoke” only refers to men of white races, European blood, and “superior” habits and religion.
The Case for India. The presidential address delivered by Annie Besant at the thirty-second Indian National Congress held at Calcutta, 26th December 1917
"But there are other causes which have been working in India, consequent on the British attitude against autocracy and in defence of freedom in Europe, while her attitude to India has, until lately, been left in doubt. Therefore I spoke of a splendid opportunity lost. India at first believed whole-heartedly that Great Britain was fighting for the freedom of all Nationalities. Even now, Mr. Asquith declared—in his speech in the House of Commons reported here last October, on the peace resolution of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald—that "the Allies are fighting for nothing but freedom, and, an important addition—for nothing short of freedom." In his speech declaring that Britain would stand by France in her claim for the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine, he spoke of "the intolerable degradation of a foreign yoke." Is such a yoke less intolerable, less wounding to self-respect here, than in Alsace-Lorraine, where the rulers and the ruled are both of European blood, similar in religion and habits? As the War went on, India slowly and unwillingly came to realise that the hatred of autocracy was confined to autocracy in the West, and that the degradation was only regarded as intolerable for men of white races; that freedom was lavishly promised to all except to India; that new powers were to be given to the Dominions, but not to India. India was markedly left out of the speeches of statesmen dealing with the future of the Empire, and at last there was plain talk of the White Empire, the Empire of the Five Nations, and the "coloured races" were lumped together as the wards of the White Empire, doomed to an indefinite minority."
Context: Annie Besant was a political activist and Indian independence leader. She joined the fight for Indian Home Rule during World War I, which was founded in April 1916. This movement was led by the All India Home Rule League, which demanded self-government and the status of a Dominion, meaning “autonomous communities within the British Empire”, which would eventually become fully sovereign from Great Britain.
Besant contends that Great Britain claimed to be fighting for “freedom of all nationalities”, but this freedom was promised to all Western countries, excluding India. India was explicitly addressed as an inferior race in speeches made by British statesmen such as Ramsay McDonald, who barely mentioned the future of India in his speeches dealing with the British Empire. In response to Ramsay Macdonald’s peace resolution in which he declared that Great Britain would stand by France, Besant asserts that the phrase “intolerable degradation of a foreign yoke” only refers to men of white races, European blood, and “superior” habits and religion.