Hello!
Does anyone have any data about what was the pecentage of British in the local govermental bodies and normal worker population in the colonies and other controlled territories, f.ex. India and Ireland?
.
Sorry mate, could you ask again, a bit more clearly?
I don’t understand wht you are asking. Go for lot’s of simple questions if poss.
Lets take ,for example, India or Northen Irland.
There was a local goverment, right? Every local goverment office consist of number of people at the “manager” position. So the question is how many percent were there of local population and how many where brits relocated from the British island?
I want to see who took the descision about the local life - brits or natives.
It depends upon what time period.
For India, the Indian Civil Service went through a transition after the First World War that continued right upto Independece - called Indianisation. Basically, over time more and more Indians were allowed to join the Civil Service.
But at no time was there a situation where decisions were made purely by Indians - at best, Indian managers (who were few in number) made localised decisions through interpretations of British/Indian Government rules. But all important local, district and national positions were occupied or supervised by the British.
Thanks Amrit! So lets say in the period after WW2 and until the independance whoud there be 2/3 of indians in the “important local, district and national positions”?
I hope my question is clear…
The question is clear but I’m afraid the answer isn’t!
Just to back track to the period after WW1.
There were two reform acts that affected the Indianisation process. But you must also bear in mind that British rule in India was complicated by the fact that it was not a unified country like it is now. It was a federation made up of directly governed areas and princely states governed by their rulers with British “advisors”. We need to forget about the latter because the structures of governance, including the Civil Service was completely internal.
Within the provinces, governance can be split into two groups - local and central. Central departments were less likely to be Indianised (Finace, Police etc). However, after the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919, the system of government, and the responsibilities of the provinces were changed. This increased the numbers in departments such as education, agriculture (which was far more important in India because it wasn’t an industrialised country), public services etc. However, even though the State Ministers and workers often were Indian, the Provincial Governor was British, and had the final say on important decisions.
Subsequent changes to the reforms before the war were meant to increase Indian participation in government at all levels, but these were instigated by the government in London, and were strongly resisted by the British in India (they didn’t want to lose anymore power).
With the start of the war, the situation becomes even more complicated because the Congress party withdrew their support for the British (and British India) war effort - they wanted the British to acknowledge that they would grant independence after the war - something the British refused to do until the war was won. This lead to all the Congress members in the provincial governments to resign (which was the vast majority of Indian politicians at that time - but not Indian civil servants). This of course, meant that any gains in power and managerial positions they had made before the war was generally lost.
After the war, and with the Labour Party in power in London, the indianisation process continued, and gradually increased, as the build-up to independence.
However, the positions of power continued to remain in the hands of the British right up to the end, even though the numbers of Indian workers increased. As this period as a transition, and because of the experiences of the British and Indians during the war, the actual regime was not as strict as before, and one culd call it a mutual understanding. The British knew they were leaving, and even though the manager maybe British the decisions were delegated to their subordinates.
To further complicate the situation, there was also the matter of the partition into India and the two Pakistans. This meant that the British leaving didn’t just produce a smooth transition into an independent Indian Civil Service, but into two Civil Services. This was also another reason why the British had to remain in positions of power till the end - departments, right down to some local village offices, had to be split between the two countries, and ultimate authority could not be placed on one party or the other.
My apologies for not being able to give exact figures, but I hope this helps in explaining the situation.
In Northern Ireland it was 100% British, the Northern Irish were British subject. Even the southern Irish could vote in British elections if they lived in that area. The Northern Ireland also had a number of MPs at Westminster, some of whom were terrorists, who were British and the Irish had at least one prime minister, Wellington.
I don’t have the answer quickly to hand and others doubtless have far superior knowledge, but, Egorka, I think the percentage of Brits in comparison to the whole population and the the civil service in India was staggeringly small. The same holds true for the Dutch East Indies where not only was the top level of Dutch Administrators tiny, but the total number of actual “white” soldiers was tiny as well. I had some figures for the Dutch at one time, but have them quickly to hand now.