Prior to 1944, British-controlled India saw the development of nationalist movements such as the Civil Disobedience Movement (Salt Satyagraha) in the 1930s and the "Quit India" movement of 1942. This resulted in Indian independence in 1947. Within Britain, this was also a period of change that led to the decolonization of India; The Second World War and its aftermath were the cause and context of economic depressions, changes in social values ​​and an increased importance of international relations. British motivations are central to the Metropolitan School when considering the decolonization of India and, because of its authorship, audience and focus, this source is particularly important for understanding British motivations when considering the decolonization of India. decolonization of India. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay This source is a private letter between two important figures in the British government – ​​Lord Wavell (an officer who fought on the North Border Western India and later (he held positions such as Deputy Adjutant General at the War Office and later head of the Eastern Command in 1939) and Winston Churchill (as Prime Minister at the time).Authorship and audience mean that this source has the potential to provide insight into British motivations and any conflict between individuals. This letter shows that, for Wavell, British motivations during the decolonization of the. India are "strategic security", the status of "political sense and fairness" and "economic well-being". This also shows that he considered India and its steps during decolonization as essential to relations with d. other Asian countries such as China and the Far East. Wavell makes it clear that he believes that the process of devolution reforms cannot be stopped - India's movement towards independence cannot be prevented - and that Britain should therefore approach the subject by seeking the best way to " convince India of British sympathy. and produce more British loyalists in India. This letter supports the idea that Britain gave independence to India "primarily out of necessity", as David Pierce states. The source shows a heterogeneous view of India, as other members of Parliament and the British public had different views on India's control of India. British. Other MPs do not seem concerned about the nationalist movement in India, with debates on it in the Houses of Commons having only forty MPs present and meetings of national prime ministers not even mentioning it. Likewise, the British public is as indifferent to British prosperity as Wavell and would not be “associated with a policy of repression”. The source shows how long-term changes affected the way the British could rule India, not only because of its own population's disillusionment with the conflict after two world wars, but also because of the international situation. While at the beginning of the process of building the British Empire internationally it was common and therefore accepted practice (not of course by the colonial populations but by the other European powers who ruled at that time), however, After World War II, it was clear countries could not remain isolated on questions of moral actions. Just a year after the publication of this source, the United Nations and the..