Before 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” of 1942. This led to India gaining independence in 1947. In Britain too this was a period of change which led to the decolonization of India; World War II and its aftermath were the cause and context of economic depressions, changing social values, and the increased importance of international relations. British motivations are at the heart of the Metropolitan School when considering the decolonization of India, and due to its authorship, audience and focus, this source is particularly significant for understanding British motivations during the decolonization of India. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an 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-west frontier of India and later held positions as Assistant Adjutant General at the War Office and later chief of the Eastern Command in 1939) and Winston Churchill (then in the office of Prime Minister). The authorship and audience mean that this source has the potential to understand British motivations and any conflicts between individuals. This letter shows that, for Wavell, the British motivations during the decolonization of India are “strategic security”, the status of “statesmanship and fairness” and “economic well-being”. It also shows that he considered India and its actions during decolonization essential to relations with other Asian countries such as China and the Far East. Wavell makes it clear that he believes the process of decentralization reforms cannot be stopped - India's movement towards independence cannot be prevented - so Britain should approach the subject as if it were the best way to "convince India of British sympathy". and to produce more British loyalists in India. This letter supports the idea that Britain's granting of India independence arose "chiefly out of necessity," as David Pierce puts it. The source shows the heterogeneous view on India, as other members of parliament and the British public had different views on the British government's control of India. British. Other MPs seem not to care about the nationalist movement in India, given that only forty MPs are present in the debates on this topic in the House of Commons and it is not even discussed in the meetings of the Dominion Premiers. Likewise, British public opinion is as indifferent to British prosperity as Wavell is and would not be “associated with a policy of repression”. The source shows how long-term changes affected the way the British could govern India, not only because of its own population's disillusionment with the conflict after the 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 a common and therefore accepted practice (not obviously by the colonial populations but by the other European powers that ruled in that period), however, after the Second World War, it was clear countries could not remain isolated in matters relating to moral actions. Just a year after this source was published, the United Nations and the International Military Tribunal were established with new laws against aggressive actions in..