1994
DOI: 10.1080/00856409408723200
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The transfer of power in South Asia: An historiographical review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…30 Second, the leadership of the Labour Party, the party most likely to be sympathetic to anti-colonial demands, did not define India's self-government and independence as the final and longstanding goal in the party's careful plan. 31 In fact, the work of historians like John A. Gallagher, 32 Peter G. Robb, 33 and B. R. Tomlinson 34 point to 'little sign of selfless abdication in British constitutional reforms' in British policymaking between 1917 and 1947. 35 Philpott's framework suggests that when critics of empire hold up revolutionary ideas and call British policymakers to account for not living up to their established ideals and goals in the form of self-government for their colonies, 36 the fear of the loss of reputation and the corresponding political costs in the form of money, offices, votes and the prospect for violence may reconfigure their incentives and lead to change.…”
Section: Existing Ideational Explanations and Incorporating Metropolitan Identitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…30 Second, the leadership of the Labour Party, the party most likely to be sympathetic to anti-colonial demands, did not define India's self-government and independence as the final and longstanding goal in the party's careful plan. 31 In fact, the work of historians like John A. Gallagher, 32 Peter G. Robb, 33 and B. R. Tomlinson 34 point to 'little sign of selfless abdication in British constitutional reforms' in British policymaking between 1917 and 1947. 35 Philpott's framework suggests that when critics of empire hold up revolutionary ideas and call British policymakers to account for not living up to their established ideals and goals in the form of self-government for their colonies, 36 the fear of the loss of reputation and the corresponding political costs in the form of money, offices, votes and the prospect for violence may reconfigure their incentives and lead to change.…”
Section: Existing Ideational Explanations and Incorporating Metropolitan Identitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…31 In fact, the work of historians like John A. Gallagher, 32 Peter G. Robb, 33 and B. R. Tomlinson 34 point to 'little sign of selfless abdication in British constitutional reforms' in British policymaking between 1917 and 1947. 35 Philpott's framework suggests that when critics of empire hold up revolutionary ideas and call British policymakers to account for not living up to their established ideals and goals in the form of self-government for their colonies, 36 the fear of the loss of reputation and the corresponding political costs in the form of money, offices, votes and the prospect for violence may reconfigure their incentives and lead to change. 37 While this is plausible, divisions and the battle over India within the Conservative Party had, in fact, placed it in danger of being torn apart and put its future at great risk.…”
Section: Existing Ideational Explanations and Incorporating Metropolitan Identitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%