OCR Specification focus:
‘Grievances, nationalism and social change fostered organised resistance.’
Across the British Empire, opposition movements emerged from deep-rooted grievances, rising nationalist sentiment, and profound social change, driving increasingly organised resistance against imperial rule.
Roots of Opposition: Grievances Across the Empire
Political and Administrative Grievances
Colonial governance often excluded indigenous populations from meaningful participation, fuelling resentment and motivating organised opposition.
Lack of representation: Colonial legislative bodies were typically dominated by British officials or settlers, marginalising local voices.
Autocratic rule: Many colonies were governed by governors and administrators appointed from London, leading to arbitrary decision-making.
Imposition of foreign legal systems: Traditional authority structures were sidelined, undermining indigenous rulers and legal practices.
Imperial governance: The system by which Britain administered its colonies, often characterised by centralised control and limited local participation.
In India, the Indian Councils Act of 1861 introduced limited Indian participation in governance, but the powers of Indian members remained advisory, intensifying calls for greater autonomy. Similarly, in African colonies, indirect rule often relied on compliant local chiefs, breeding resentment among populations who saw traditional authority manipulated for imperial ends.
Economic Grievances
Economic exploitation lay at the heart of imperial rule and became a significant source of opposition.
Land alienation: British settlers frequently seized fertile land, displacing indigenous communities.
Taxation policies: Colonised peoples were burdened with taxes to fund colonial administrations and infrastructure projects that often served British economic interests.
Labour exploitation: Systems such as indentured labour, forced labour, and low wages maintained colonial economic dominance.
In Kenya, the hut tax and restrictions on land ownership fuelled widespread discontent, while in India, the deindustrialisation of local textile industries under British free-trade policies devastated traditional economies. These conditions created fertile ground for organised resistance, from strikes to nationalist movements.
Cultural and Religious Grievances
Colonialism often sought to impose British cultural norms and Christian values, leading to resistance rooted in cultural preservation.
Missionary activity challenged indigenous religions and social customs.
Educational policies promoted Western curricula, marginalising traditional knowledge.
Social hierarchies were reinforced by racial discrimination, deepening divisions.
The cultural affront of British policies contributed to uprisings such as the Indian Rebellion of 1857, where fears of religious contamination reflected broader anxieties about cultural erosion.
Nationalism and the Rise of Anti-Colonial Movements
The Growth of Nationalist Ideologies
Nationalism — the belief in the right of a people to self-determination and governance — emerged as a powerful force against imperial rule.
Nationalism: A political ideology centred on the belief that a people sharing a common identity, culture, or history should govern themselves as an independent nation.
From the late nineteenth century, colonised elites exposed to European political thought began to articulate nationalist ideas. Many were educated in British institutions and used Britain’s own liberal ideals to critique imperialism. This produced early political organisations:
Indian National Congress (1885) initially sought reform within the empire but evolved towards independence.
African National Congress (1912) in South Africa became a platform for political rights and later anti-apartheid struggle.
West African National Congress (1920s) united elites across colonies in demanding self-rule.
Symbolic Leaders and Mass Mobilisation
Figures like Mahatma Gandhi in India, Kwame Nkrumah in the Gold Coast, and Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya transformed nationalist thought into mass movements.
Gandhi’s use of satyagraha (non-violent resistance) linked nationalism with moral legitimacy.
Nkrumah’s “Self-Government Now” slogan captured post-war impatience for independence.
Kenyatta’s leadership of KAU (Kenya African Union) provided a unifying political vehicle.
Nationalism drew authority from Gandhian mass mobilisation, demonstrating that disciplined non-violent resistance could rally broad social support against colonial rule.
Mahatma Gandhi leads supporters during the 1930 Salt March, a tax-resistance campaign that transformed nationalist sentiment into mass action. The march exemplified how ethical appeal, ritualised protest and media visibility expanded participation beyond elites. This image directly illustrates non-violent mobilisation as a reason for opposition’s development. Source
These leaders connected local grievances to wider nationalist aspirations, bridging class, ethnic, and regional divisions and transforming fragmented opposition into organised campaigns.
Social Change and the Evolution of Resistance
Education and Political Awareness
The spread of Western education created new elites who questioned colonial authority. Educated Africans, Indians, and Asians used newspapers, pamphlets, and public speeches to criticise imperial policies and advocate reform.
Literacy enabled the formation of political parties and newspapers like The West African Pilot.
Colonial universities became hotbeds of anti-colonial sentiment.
Education also helped forge a shared national consciousness by highlighting common experiences of oppression across diverse groups.
Education, vernacular literacy and a growing print culture—newspapers, pamphlets and associations—expanded a public sphere for coordinated protest.
Front page of the West African Pilot (12 June 1954), a Nigerian newspaper founded by Nnamdi Azikiwe to promote independence. Such papers connected educated elites and wider audiences, diffusing nationalist ideas and organising campaigns. Extra headlines on the page go beyond OCR’s core points but illustrate the breadth of nationalist reportage. Source
Urbanisation and New Social Classes
Industrial and infrastructural development brought significant urbanisation, creating concentrated populations more capable of collective action.
Urban workers, facing poor conditions and low wages, organised strikes and protests.
Emerging middle classes, often excluded from political power, became vocal critics of colonial rule.
In Nigeria and the Gold Coast, urban trade unions became crucial to anti-colonial movements, linking economic struggles with political demands.
Global Influences and Ideological Shifts
Global events profoundly shaped colonial resistance.
The First World War and Second World War exposed colonial troops to new political ideas and raised expectations of reward for their service.
The Atlantic Charter (1941), promising self-determination, inspired nationalist leaders.
The rise of communism and Pan-Africanism offered alternative models to imperialism and emphasised solidarity across colonies.
Pan-African congresses from 1900 onwards provided forums for coordination, while anti-imperialist rhetoric from the Soviet Union encouraged more radical approaches to liberation.
Organised Resistance: From Local to Global Movements
Shift from Local Rebellions to Coordinated Movements
Early opposition, such as the Indian Rebellion (1857) or the Zulu resistance in southern Africa, was often localised and reactive. By the early twentieth century, resistance had evolved into coordinated nationalist campaigns with clear political objectives.
Trade unions, religious groups, and student associations aligned with nationalist parties.
Movements increasingly used legal challenges, petitions, boycotts, and mass demonstrations to apply pressure.
Violence and Non-Violence as Strategies
Resistance strategies varied widely.
Non-violent movements, such as Gandhi’s campaigns, sought to delegitimise imperial authority through civil disobedience.
Violent resistance, as seen in the Mau Mau uprising (1952–60), reflected frustration with slow constitutional progress and harsh colonial repression.
Both approaches reflected underlying grievances and shifting political contexts, demonstrating the adaptability and resilience of anti-colonial movements.
FAQ
Colonial authorities often imposed taxes such as the hut tax, poll tax, or land tax to fund administration and force Africans and Asians into the cash economy.
These taxes had several effects:
They undermined subsistence economies, compelling people to work on plantations or in mines to earn money.
They deepened resentment as colonised populations saw little benefit from the revenue collected.
They symbolised foreign domination, becoming flashpoints for resistance.
For example, the introduction of the hut tax in Kenya in the early 20th century triggered widespread protest and helped mobilise early nationalist sentiment against British rule.
Service in the World Wars exposed colonial soldiers to new political ideas and international debates about democracy and self-determination.
Upon returning home, many veterans demanded rights and recognition, questioning why they remained under colonial rule after risking their lives for the empire.
They often became influential figures in nationalist organisations, bringing discipline, organisational skills, and political awareness. In colonies like Ghana and Kenya, veterans played central roles in protests and strikes, strengthening movements for independence.
The Great Depression intensified economic hardship across the empire, worsening existing grievances and fuelling organised opposition.
Falling export prices for colonial goods like cocoa, tea, and cotton devastated local economies.
Rising unemployment and falling wages increased resentment towards colonial authorities.
Economic inequality became more visible, radicalising nationalist leaders and labour movements.
This period saw an upsurge in strikes, protests, and political mobilisation, particularly in West Africa, where trade unions gained strength and linked economic demands to calls for political reform.
Trusteeship was the idea that Britain governed colonies for their own eventual benefit and development, preparing them for self-rule.
Critics argued it was paternalistic and hypocritical:
In practice, colonial policies often prioritised British economic and strategic interests over local development.
The promise of eventual self-rule was vague and repeatedly delayed, fuelling frustration among educated elites.
Trusteeship language was used to justify continued control, even as nationalist movements demanded immediate independence.
This contradiction between rhetoric and reality sharpened opposition and undermined imperial legitimacy.
Pan-Africanism promoted solidarity among people of African descent, arguing that liberation required collective action across colonial borders.
Pan-African congresses (notably 1919, 1921, 1945) brought together activists from Africa and the diaspora to coordinate demands for political rights and independence.
Leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah drew on Pan-African ideas to frame local struggles within a global context.
It fostered intellectual exchange and ideological support, strengthening anti-colonial movements by linking them to a broader fight against imperialism and racism.
This transnational perspective helped sustain resistance even where local movements were suppressed.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Identify two key reasons why nationalist movements developed in the British Empire in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Mark Scheme:
Award 1 mark for each correct reason identified, up to a maximum of 2 marks.
Possible answers include:
Political exclusion and lack of representation in colonial governance.
Economic grievances such as land alienation, taxation, or labour exploitation.
Cultural and religious challenges posed by colonial rule.
The spread of Western education and literacy.
Influence of global events such as the World Wars and the Atlantic Charter.
Growth of nationalist ideologies and leadership figures.
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain how social change contributed to the development of organised resistance against British colonial rule.
Mark Scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks):
Basic statements showing limited understanding. May identify one or two social changes with little or no explanation.
Example: “Education helped people resist.”
Level 2 (3–4 marks):
Shows some understanding of how social change contributed to resistance. May offer relevant examples but explanation is partial or lacks detail.
Example: “Education created new elites who criticised colonial rule and spread nationalist ideas.”
Level 3 (5–6 marks):
Demonstrates clear and detailed understanding of the role of social change in developing organised resistance. Explains processes and uses specific examples.
Points may include:
Education created literate elites and political awareness, enabling criticism of imperial rule and formation of nationalist organisations.
Print culture (newspapers, pamphlets) helped spread nationalist ideas and coordinate opposition.
Urbanisation brought people together, fostering trade unions and collective action.
Global ideological influences such as Pan-Africanism and self-determination inspired anti-colonial thinking.
Examples like the West African Pilot newspaper, student movements, or new political parties strengthen the answer.
