Impact of the Hindu–German Conspiracy - Revision history

Bot: robot: Create/upgrade articles. If there is a mistake please report on my talk page.

2022-09-06T20:08:18Z

robot: Create/upgrade articles. If there is a mistake please report on my talk page.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:38, 7 September 2022
Line 21:		Line 21:
	\|date = November 1, 1997		\|date = November 1, 1997
	\|accessdate = 2007-10-07		\|accessdate = 2007-10-07
	\|url-status = ~~usurped~~		\|url-status = dead
	\|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20071128143651/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1422/14220500.htm		\|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20071128143651/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1422/14220500.htm
	\|archivedate = November 28, 2007		\|archivedate = November 28, 2007
Line 38:		Line 38:
	By 1916, majority of the resources of the American department of the British Foreign office were related to the Indian seditionist movement. Before the outbreak of the war, [[Cecil Spring Rice]], the Ambassador to United States at the time of the war, is known to resisted the [[British Foreign Office]] from making this a diplomatic issue.<ref name=Strachan800>{{Harvnb\|Strachan\|2001\|p=800}}</ref> Spring-Rice's dispatches cite concerns with regards to American tolerance of the [[Anarchism\|Anarchist movements]] in American soil, the American government's inactions despite concrete knowledge (in Spring-Rice's opinion) of the conspiracies, as well as concerns regarding the image of Britain in American public opinion if she is seen to persecute oppressed people. Further, Spring-Rice was particularly wary of the [[Woodrow Wilson\|Wilson administration]]'s political commitments, especially given that the [[United States Secretary of State]] [[William Jennings Bryan]] had authored eight years previously a pamphlet highly critical of the "''British rule in India''", which had been classified as seditionist by the Indian and Imperial governments.<ref name=Fraser260>{{Harvnb\|Fraser\|1977\|p=260}}</ref><ref name=Strachan804>{{Harvnb\|Strachan\|2001\|p=804}}</ref> Following Bryan's departure, the [[Secretary of State for India]], the [[Robert Crewe-Milnes, 1st Marquess of Crewe\|Marquess of Crewe]], attempted to persuade Spring-Rice to raise the issue in front of the United States government. American authorities in Philippines were also more cooperative at this time that assured Britain of for knowledge of any plans against Hong Kong. Following the conclusion of the [[Lahore Conspiracy Case trial]], and as more evidence of German complicity came afore, Foreign Secretary [[Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon\|Edward Grey]] was forced to override Spring-Rice's concerns. In February 1916, the concerns of the British government regarding the conspiracy and German complicity were officially presented to the American government.		By 1916, majority of the resources of the American department of the British Foreign office were related to the Indian seditionist movement. Before the outbreak of the war, [[Cecil Spring Rice]], the Ambassador to United States at the time of the war, is known to resisted the [[British Foreign Office]] from making this a diplomatic issue.<ref name=Strachan800>{{Harvnb\|Strachan\|2001\|p=800}}</ref> Spring-Rice's dispatches cite concerns with regards to American tolerance of the [[Anarchism\|Anarchist movements]] in American soil, the American government's inactions despite concrete knowledge (in Spring-Rice's opinion) of the conspiracies, as well as concerns regarding the image of Britain in American public opinion if she is seen to persecute oppressed people. Further, Spring-Rice was particularly wary of the [[Woodrow Wilson\|Wilson administration]]'s political commitments, especially given that the [[United States Secretary of State]] [[William Jennings Bryan]] had authored eight years previously a pamphlet highly critical of the "''British rule in India''", which had been classified as seditionist by the Indian and Imperial governments.<ref name=Fraser260>{{Harvnb\|Fraser\|1977\|p=260}}</ref><ref name=Strachan804>{{Harvnb\|Strachan\|2001\|p=804}}</ref> Following Bryan's departure, the [[Secretary of State for India]], the [[Robert Crewe-Milnes, 1st Marquess of Crewe\|Marquess of Crewe]], attempted to persuade Spring-Rice to raise the issue in front of the United States government. American authorities in Philippines were also more cooperative at this time that assured Britain of for knowledge of any plans against Hong Kong. Following the conclusion of the [[Lahore Conspiracy Case trial]], and as more evidence of German complicity came afore, Foreign Secretary [[Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon\|Edward Grey]] was forced to override Spring-Rice's concerns. In February 1916, the concerns of the British government regarding the conspiracy and German complicity were officially presented to the American government.

	However, although the new Secretary of State, [[Robert Lansing]], was initially as uncooperative as Bryan, the first investigations of the conspiracy opened with the raid of the Wall Street office of [[Wolf von Igel]], seizing papers that were later presented as evidence in the [[Hindu–German Conspiracy Trial]].<ref name=Strachan804/> To much chagrin of the British government, however, it was not pursued further at the time. The issue precipitated a more general Anglo-American neutrality dispute, aggravated by belligerent preventive measures taken by the [[China Station\|British Far-Eastern fleet]] on the high seas that threatened the sovereignty of American vessels. The seizure of German and Turkish passengers from the American vessel ''China'' by HMS ''Laurentic'' at the mouth of the [[Yangtze River]] and the following argument by the British government that the seized planned to foment armed uprising in India provoked outrage from the American government, followed by a number of incidences including the SS ''Henry S'' incident. The [[United States Fleet Forces Command\|U. S. Atlantic Fleet]] dispatched [[destroyer]]s to the Philippines. The relations were strained when in May 1916, the British government decided to relax its aggressive policy and seek cooperation with the US. The ''China'' prisoners were released that month, but relations did not improve before November that year, with a number of exchanges through the rest of 1916.		However, although the new Secretary of State, [[Robert Lansing]], was initially as uncooperative as Bryan, the first investigations of the conspiracy opened with the raid of the Wall Street office of [[Wolf von Igel]], seizing papers that were later presented as evidence in the [[Hindu–German Conspiracy Trial]].<ref name=Strachan804/> To much chagrin of the British government, however, it was not pursued further at the time. The issue precipitated a more general Anglo-American neutrality dispute, aggravated by belligerent preventive measures taken by the [[China Station\|British Far-Eastern fleet]] on the high seas that threatened the sovereignty of American vessels. The seizure of German and Turkish passengers from the American vessel ''China'' by HMS ''Laurentic'' at the mouth of the [[Yangtze River]] and the following argument by the British government that the seized planned to foment armed uprising in India provoked outrage from the American government, followed by a number of incidences{{verify spelling\|date=September 2022\|reason=''incidence'' is normally used only in the singular form, perhaps ''incidence'', ''incidents'', or ''instances'' was intended}} including the SS ''Henry S'' incident. The [[United States Fleet Forces Command\|U. S. Atlantic Fleet]] dispatched [[destroyer]]s to the Philippines. The relations were strained when in May 1916, the British government decided to relax its aggressive policy and seek cooperation with the US. The ''China'' prisoners were released that month, but relations did not improve before November that year, with a number of exchanges through the rest of 1916.

	The issue was ultimately addressed by [[William G. E. Wiseman]], head of British intelligence in the US, who passed on details of a bomb plot directly to the [[New York City Police Department\|New York Police]] by passing diplomatic channels. This led to the arrest of Chandra Kanta Chuckrevarty. As the links between Chuckervarty papers and the Igel papers became apparent, the investigations by Federal authorities ultimately expanded to cover the entire conspiracy., with the US agreeing to pass on evidence so long as Britain did not seek admission of liability for Breaches of Neutrality. At a time that diplomatic relations with Germany were deteriorating, the Foreign office directed the Embassy to cooperate with the investigations. These ultimately resolved the Anglo-American diplomatic disputes just as America entered the war.<ref name=Strachan804/><ref>{{Harvnb\|Dignan\|1971\|p=}}</ref>		The issue was ultimately addressed by [[William G. E. Wiseman]], head of British intelligence in the US, who passed on details of a bomb plot directly to the [[New York City Police Department\|New York Police]] by passing diplomatic channels. This led to the arrest of Chandra Kanta Chuckrevarty. As the links between Chuckervarty papers and the Igel papers became apparent, the investigations by Federal authorities ultimately expanded to cover the entire conspiracy., with the US agreeing to pass on evidence so long as Britain did not seek admission of liability for Breaches of Neutrality. At a time that diplomatic relations with Germany were deteriorating, the Foreign office directed the Embassy to cooperate with the investigations. These ultimately resolved the Anglo-American diplomatic disputes just as America entered the war.<ref name=Strachan804/><ref>{{Harvnb\|Dignan\|1971\|p=}}</ref>
Line 70:		Line 70:

	==Notes and references==		==Notes and references==
	{{~~Unreferenced section\|date=February 2018~~}}		{{Reflist}}

	{{~~Reflist~~}}		===Sources===
			{{refbegin\|2}}
			* {{cite journal \|last1=Brown \|first1=Giles T. \|title=The Hindu Conspiracy, 1914-1917 \|journal=Pacific Historical Review \|date=1 August 1948 \|volume=17 \|issue=3 \|pages=299–310 \|doi=10.2307/3634258}}
			* {{cite journal \|last1=Brown \|first1=Emily C. \|title=Indian Revolutionaries Abroad, 1905–1922: In the Background of International Developments. By Arun Coomer Bose. Patna: Bharati Bhawan, 1971. xv, 268 pp. Illustrations, Bibliography, Index. (Dist. By South Asian Books, Columbia, Mo.). \|journal=The Journal of Asian Studies \|date=May 1973 \|volume=32 \|issue=3 \|pages=522–523 \|doi=10.2307/2052702}}
			* {{cite journal \|last1=Brown \|first1=Emily C. \|title=The Indian Revolutionary Problem in British Diplomacy, 1914–1919. By Don Dignan. New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1983. xvi, 256 pp. Notes, Bibliography, Index. (Distributed by South Asia Books, Columbia, Mo.) \|journal=The Journal of Asian Studies \|date=February 1986 \|volume=45 \|issue=2 \|pages=421–422 \|doi=10.2307/2055882}}
			* {{cite book \|last1=Cell \|first1=John W. \|title=Hailey: A Study in British Imperialism, 1872-1969 \|date=22 August 2002 \|publisher=Cambridge University Press \|isbn=978-0-521-52117-8 \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K5LX9AUcyMYC \|language=en}}
			* {{Cite book \|last1=Cole \|first1=Howard \|year=2001 \|title=Labour and Radical Politics 1762–1937 \|publisher=Routledge \|isbn=0-415-26576-2 \|display-authors=etal}}
			* {{Cite journal \|last1=Deepak \|first1=B. R. \|title=Revolutionary Activities of the Ghadar Party in China \|journal=China Report \|date=1999 \|volume=35 \|page=439 \|publisher=Sage Publications \|issn=0009-4455}}
			* {{Cite journal \|last1=Dignan \|first1=Don \|title=The Hindu Conspiracy in Anglo-American Relations during World War I \|journal=The Pacific Historical Review \|volume=40 \|issue=1 \|date=February 1971 \|pages=57–76 \|publisher=University of California Press \|issn=0030-8684 \|doi=10.2307/3637829 \|jstor=3637829}}
			* {{cite book \|last1=Dignan \|first1=Don \|title=The Indian Revolutionary Problem in British Diplomacy, 1914-1919 \|date=1983 \|publisher=Allied Publishers \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fgC7AAAAIAAJ \|language=en}}
			* {{Cite book \|last1=Fay \|first1=Peter W. \|year=1993 \|title=The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942–1945 \|publisher=University of Michigan Press \|location=Ann Arbor \|isbn=0-472-08342-2}}
			* {{cite journal \|last1=Fraser \|first1=Thomas G. \|title=Germany and Indian Revolution, 1914-18 \|journal=Journal of Contemporary History \|date=April 1977 \|volume=12 \|issue=2 \|pages=255–272 \|doi=10.1177/002200947701200203}}
			* {{cite journal \|last1=Gupta \|first1=Amit Kumar \|title=Defying Death: Nationalist Revolutionism in India, 1897-1938 \|journal=Social Scientist \|date=September 1997 \|volume=25 \|issue=9/10 \|pages=3 \|doi=10.2307/3517678}}
			* {{cite journal \|last1=Hoover \|first1=Karl \|title=The Hindu Conspiracy in California, 1913-1918 \|journal=German Studies Review \|date=May 1985 \|volume=8 \|issue=2 \|pages=245 \|doi=10.2307/1428642}}
			* {{Cite book \|last1= Hopkirk \|first1=Peter \|author-link=Peter Hopkirk \|year=1997 \|title=Like Hidden Fire: The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire \|publisher=Kodansha Globe \|isbn=1-56836-127-0}}
			* {{Cite book \|last1=Hopkirk \|first1=Peter \|author-link=Peter Hopkirk \|year=2001 \|title=On Secret Service East of Constantinople \|publisher=Oxford Paperbacks \|isbn=0-19-280230-5}}
			* {{Cite book \|last1=Ker \|first1=J. C. \|author-link=J. Campbell Ker \|year=1917 \|title=Political Trouble in India 1907–1917 \|location=Calcutta. \|publisher=Superintendent Government Printing, India, 1917. Republished 1973 by Delhi, Oriental Publishers \|oclc=1208166}}
			* {{Cite book \|last1=Lebra \|first1=Joyce C. \|year=1977 \|title=Japanese trained armies in South-East Asia \|publisher=Columbia University Press \|location=New York \|isbn=0-231-03995-6}}
			* {{Cite book \|last1=Lovett \|first1=Sir Verney \|year=1920 \|title=A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement \|publisher=[[Frederick A. Stokes]] Company \|location=New York \|isbn=81-7536-249-9}}
			* {{cite book \|last1=Majumdar \|first1=Ramesh C. \|title=History of the Freedom Movement in India \|volume=II \|date=1971 \|publisher=Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay \|isbn=81-7102-099-2}}
			* {{cite book \|last1=Popplewell \|first1=Richard James \|title=Intelligence and Imperial Defence: British Intelligence and the Defence of the Indian Empire, 1904-1924 \|date=1995 \|publisher=Psychology Press \|isbn=978-0-7146-4580-3 \|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=H44J2uDSE2cC \|language=en}}
			* {{cite journal \|last1=Sarkar \|first1=Benoy Kumar \|title=Reviewed work: A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement., Verney Lovett \|journal=Political Science Quarterly \|date=March 1921 \|volume=36 \|issue=1 \|pages=136 \|doi=10.2307/2142669}}
			* {{cite book \|last1=Sarkar \|first1=Sumit \|title=Modern India, 1885-1947 \|date=1983 \|publisher=Macmillan \|location=Delhi \|isbn=978-0-333-90425-1}}
			* {{cite journal \|last1=Sinha \|first1=P. B. \|title=A New Source for the History of the Revolutionary Movement in India, 1907–1917 \|journal=The Journal of Asian Studies \|date=November 1971 \|volume=31 \|issue=1 \|pages=151–156 \|doi=10.2307/2053060}}
			* {{Cite book \|last1=Strachan \|first1=Hew \|year=2001 \|title=The First World War \|volume=I: To Arms \|publisher=Oxford University Press USA \|isbn=0-19-926191-1}}
			* {{cite journal \|last1=Tinker \|first1=Hugh \|title=India in the First World War and after \|journal=Journal of Contemporary History \|date=October 1968 \|volume=3 \|issue=4 \|pages=89–107 \|doi=10.1177/002200946800300407}}
			{{refend}}

	{{DEFAULTSORT:Impact of the Hindu-German Conspiracy}}		{{DEFAULTSORT:Impact of the Hindu-German Conspiracy}}

->Chris the speller: /* Political impact */replaced: Century → century

2021-10-27T03:15:42Z

Political impact: replaced: Century → century

New page

The [[Hindu–German Conspiracy]] failed to engage popular support within India. However, it had a significant impact on Britain's policies both in the empire, as well as on her international relations.<ref>{{Harvnb|Dignan|1971|p=57}}</ref><ref name=GBrown303>{{Harvnb|Brown|1948|p=303}}</ref><ref name=Majumderxix>{{Harvnb|Majumdar|1971|p=xix}}</ref><ref name=Dignan60>{{Harvnb|Dignan|1971|p=60}}</ref><ref name=Cole>{{Harvnb|Cole|2001|p=572}}</ref> The outlines and plans for the nascent ideas of the conspiracy were noted and began to be tracked by the British intelligence as early as 1911.<ref name=Hopkirk41/> Alarmed at the agile organisation, which repeatedly reformed at different parts of the country despite being subdued in others, the chief of Indian Intelligence [[Sir Charles Cleveland]] was forced to warn that the idea and attempt at pan-Indian revolutions were spreading through India "like some hidden fire".<ref name=Hopkirk41>{{Harvnb|Hopkirk|2001|p=41}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Hopkirk|1997|p=43}}</ref> A massive, concerted and coordinated effort was required to subdue the movement. Attempts were made in 1914 to prevent the naturalisation of [[Tarak Nath Das]] as an American citizen, while successful pressure was applied to have [[Har Dayal]] interned.<ref name="Dignan60"/> The conspiracy had been detected early by British intelligence, and had been the subject of strong British pressure from 1914.

==Background==
World War I began with an unprecedented outpouring of loyalty and goodwill towards the United Kingdom from within the mainstream political leadership, contrary to initial British fears of an Indian revolt. India contributed massively to the British war effort by providing men and resources. About 1.3 million Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, while both the Indian government and the princes sent large supplies of food, money, and ammunition. However, [[Bengal]] and [[Punjab (British India)|Punjab]] remained hotbeds of [[Revolutionary movement for Indian independence|anti-colonial activities]]. Terrorism in Bengal, increasingly closely linked with the unrests in Punjab, was significant enough to nearly paralyse the regional administration.<ref name=Gupta12>{{Harvnb|Gupta|1997|p=12}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Popplewell|1995|p=201}}</ref> Also from the beginning of the war, expatriate Indian population, notably from United States, Canada, and Germany, headed by the [[Berlin Committee]] and the [[Ghadar Party]], attempted to trigger insurrections in India on the lines of the [[1857 uprising]] with [[Irish Republican]], German and Turkish help in a massive conspiracy that has since come to be called the [[Hindu–German Conspiracy]]<ref name=GBrown300>{{Harvnb|Brown|1948|p=300}}</ref><ref name=Strachan798>{{Harvnb|Strachan|2001|p=798}}</ref><ref name=Hoover252>{{Harvnb|Hoover|1985|p=252}}</ref> This conspiracy also attempted to rally Afghanistan against British India.<ref name=Strachan788>{{Harvnb|Strachan|2001|p=788}}</ref> A number of failed attempts were made at mutiny, of which the [[Ghadar Mutiny#February 1915|February mutiny plan]] and the [[1915 Singapore Mutiny]] remains most notable. This movement was suppressed by means of a massive international counter-intelligence operation and draconian political acts (including the [[Defence of India Act 1915]]) that lasted nearly ten years.<ref name="Hopkirk41"/><ref>{{Harvnb|Popplewell|1995|p=234}}</ref>

==Political impact==
{{See also|Defence of India Act 1915}}
{{Main|Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms|Rowlatt Act|Amritsar Massacre}}
The Conspiracy, judged by the British Indian Government's own evaluation at the time, and those of a number of contemporary and modern historians, was one of the most important events in the [[Indian independence movement]] and was one of the most significant threats to have faced the Raj in the second decade of the 20th century.<ref>{{harvnb|Sinha|1971|p=153}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Ker|1917|p=}}</ref>

===In India===
The conspiracy, especially in the scenario of the British war effort and the threat from the militant movement in India, was the major factor for the passage of the [[Defence of India Act 1915]]. Among the strongest proponents of the act was [[Michael O'Dwyer]], then the Lieutenant Governor of Punjab, and this was largely due to the Ghadarite movement.<ref name=Popplewell175>{{Harvnb|Popplewell|1995|p=175}}</ref>

It is now judged to have been the principal factor guiding British political concessions as well as Whitehall's India policy during and after World War I, including the passage of [[Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms]].<ref name=Cole/> It has also been suggested by a number of historians that the events, especially in Punjab, in 1919 owed to a large extent to the Ghadarite movement or what was left of it, the presence of Pratap's [[Kabul mission]] in Afghanistan its overtures towards [[Bolshevik Russia]], and the [[British Raj|Raj]]'s perception of its potential was a key factor, in spurring political progression in India.<ref name=Majumderxix/><ref name=Dignan60/><ref name=Popplewell175/><ref name=Lovett>{{Harvnb|Lovett|1920|pp=94, 187–191}}</ref><ref name=Sarkar1921>{{Harvnb|Sarkar|1921|p=137}}</ref><ref name=Tinker92>{{Harvnb|Tinker|1968|p=92}}</ref> In 1917, the Montagu–Chelmsford Reforms initiated the first rounds of political reform in the Indian subcontinent. At the same time, a [[Rowlatt Committee|Sedition Committee]] chaired by Sydney Rowlatt, an English judge, was instituted in 1918 which evaluated the Indo-German-Ghadar link and the militant movement in India. On the recommendations of the committee, the [[Rowlatt Act]], an extension of the [[Defence of India Act 1915]], was enforced in response to the threat in Punjab and Bengal.<ref name=Tinker92/>

1919 was also the time that [[British Indian Army|Indian troops]] were returning from the battlefields of Europe and [[Mesopotamia]] to find India far removed from the ideals they fought for, and in the midst of an economic and political stagnation.<ref>{{Harvnb|Sarkar|1983|pp=169–172,176}}</ref> The attempts of mutiny in 1915 and the [[Lahore conspiracy trial]]s were still in public attention. News of young [[Muhajir (Turkey)|Mohajirs]] who fought on behalf of the [[Ottoman Empire|Turkish Caliphate]] and later fought in the ranks of the [[Red Army]] during the [[Russian Civil War]] also began reaching India at this time.<ref name=FLJR>{{cite web
|author = Swami P
|work = The Hindu
|url = http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1422/14220500.htm
|title = Jallianwala Bagh revisited
|date = November 1, 1997
|accessdate = 2007-10-07
|url-status = usurped
|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20071128143651/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1422/14220500.htm
|archivedate = November 28, 2007
}}</ref> The Russian Revolution had also cast its long shadow into India.<ref>{{harvnb|Sarkar|1983|p=177}}</ref> It was also at this time that [[Gandhi]], till then relatively unknown in the Indian political scene, began emerging as a mass leader.

===Afghanistan===
Ominously, in 1919, the [[Third Anglo-Afghan War]] began in the wake of Amir [[Habibullah Khan|Habibullah]]'s assassination and institution of [[Amānullāh Khān|Amānullāh]] in a system blatantly influenced by the [[Kabul Mission]]. In addition, in India, Gandhi's call for protest against the [[Rowlatt Act]] achieved an unprecedented response of furious unrest and protests. The situation especially in Punjab was deteriorating rapidly, with disruptions of rail, telegraph and communication system. The movement was at its peak before the end of the first week of April, with some recording that "Practically the whole of Lahore was on the streets, the immense crowd that passed through Anarkali was estimated to be around 20,000."<ref name=FLJR/> In Amritsar, over 5,000 people gathered at Jallianwala Bagh. This situation deteriorated perceptibly over the next few days. [[Michael O'Dwyer]] is said to have been of firm belief that these were the early and ill-concealed signs of a conspiracy of a coordinated uprising around May, on the lines of the [[1857 revolt]], at a time when the British troops would have withdrawn to the hills for the summer. The [[Amritsar massacre]], as well as responses preceding and succeeding it, contrary to being an isolated incident, was the end result of a concerted plan of response from the Punjab administration to suppress such a conspiracy succeeding.<ref>{{Harvnb|Cell|2002|p=67}}</ref> [[James Houssemayne Du Boulay]] is said to have ascribed a direct relationship between the fear of a Ghadarite uprising in the midst of an increasingly tensed situation in Punjab, and the British response that ended in the massacre.<ref name=Brown1973>{{Harvnb|Brown|1973|p=523}}</ref>

Lastly, the British efforts to downplay and disguise the nature and impact of the revolutionary movement at this time also resulted in a policy designed to strengthen the moderate movement in India, which ultimately saw [[Gandhi]]'s rise in the Indian movement.<ref name=Popplewell4>{{Harvnb|Popplewell|1995|p=4}}</ref>

==International relations==
{{See also|Anglo-American relations|Anglo-Japanese relations}}
The conspiracy influenced a number of aspects of Great Britain's international relations, most of all the [[Anglo-American relations]] during the war, as well as, to some extent, the Anglo-Chinese relations. After the war, it was one of the issues that influenced Anglo-Japanese relations.

===Anglo-US relations===
By 1916, majority of the resources of the American department of the British Foreign office were related to the Indian seditionist movement. Before the outbreak of the war, [[Cecil Spring Rice]], the Ambassador to United States at the time of the war, is known to resisted the [[British Foreign Office]] from making this a diplomatic issue.<ref name=Strachan800>{{Harvnb|Strachan|2001|p=800}}</ref> Spring-Rice's dispatches cite concerns with regards to American tolerance of the [[Anarchism|Anarchist movements]] in American soil, the American government's inactions despite concrete knowledge (in Spring-Rice's opinion) of the conspiracies, as well as concerns regarding the image of Britain in American public opinion if she is seen to persecute oppressed people. Further, Spring-Rice was particularly wary of the [[Woodrow Wilson|Wilson administration]]'s political commitments, especially given that the [[United States Secretary of State]] [[William Jennings Bryan]] had authored eight years previously a pamphlet highly critical of the "''British rule in India''", which had been classified as seditionist by the Indian and Imperial governments.<ref name=Fraser260>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1977|p=260}}</ref><ref name=Strachan804>{{Harvnb|Strachan|2001|p=804}}</ref> Following Bryan's departure, the [[Secretary of State for India]], the [[Robert Crewe-Milnes, 1st Marquess of Crewe|Marquess of Crewe]], attempted to persuade Spring-Rice to raise the issue in front of the United States government. American authorities in Philippines were also more cooperative at this time that assured Britain of for knowledge of any plans against Hong Kong. Following the conclusion of the [[Lahore Conspiracy Case trial]], and as more evidence of German complicity came afore, Foreign Secretary [[Edward Grey, 1st Viscount Grey of Fallodon|Edward Grey]] was forced to override Spring-Rice's concerns. In February 1916, the concerns of the British government regarding the conspiracy and German complicity were officially presented to the American government.

However, although the new Secretary of State, [[Robert Lansing]], was initially as uncooperative as Bryan, the first investigations of the conspiracy opened with the raid of the Wall Street office of [[Wolf von Igel]], seizing papers that were later presented as evidence in the [[Hindu–German Conspiracy Trial]].<ref name=Strachan804/> To much chagrin of the British government, however, it was not pursued further at the time. The issue precipitated a more general Anglo-American neutrality dispute, aggravated by belligerent preventive measures taken by the [[China Station|British Far-Eastern fleet]] on the high seas that threatened the sovereignty of American vessels. The seizure of German and Turkish passengers from the American vessel ''China'' by HMS ''Laurentic'' at the mouth of the [[Yangtze River]] and the following argument by the British government that the seized planned to foment armed uprising in India provoked outrage from the American government, followed by a number of incidences including the SS ''Henry S'' incident. The [[United States Fleet Forces Command|U. S. Atlantic Fleet]] dispatched [[destroyer]]s to the Philippines. The relations were strained when in May 1916, the British government decided to relax its aggressive policy and seek cooperation with the US. The ''China'' prisoners were released that month, but relations did not improve before November that year, with a number of exchanges through the rest of 1916.

The issue was ultimately addressed by [[William G. E. Wiseman]], head of British intelligence in the US, who passed on details of a bomb plot directly to the [[New York City Police Department|New York Police]] by passing diplomatic channels. This led to the arrest of Chandra Kanta Chuckrevarty. As the links between Chuckervarty papers and the Igel papers became apparent, the investigations by Federal authorities ultimately expanded to cover the entire conspiracy., with the US agreeing to pass on evidence so long as Britain did not seek admission of liability for Breaches of Neutrality. At a time that diplomatic relations with Germany were deteriorating, the Foreign office directed the Embassy to cooperate with the investigations. These ultimately resolved the Anglo-American diplomatic disputes just as America entered the war.<ref name=Strachan804/><ref>{{Harvnb|Dignan|1971|p=}}</ref>

===Sino-English and Anglo-Japanese relations===
Through 1915-16, China (along with Indonesia) formed one of the major bases for the conspirators, and significant efforts were made by the British Government to coax China into the war to attempt to control the German and Ghadar intrigues. This would also allow free purchase of arms from China for the [[Triple Entente|Entente powers]].<ref name=Strachan802>{{Harvnb|Strachan|2001|p=802}}</ref> However, Yuan's proposals for bringing China into the war were against Japanese interests and gains from the war. This along with Japanese support for Sun Yat Sen and rebels in Southern China laid the foundations of deterioration of Anglo-Japanese relations as early as 1916.<ref name=Strachan803>{{Harvnb|Strachan|2001|p=803}}</ref> After the end of World War I, Japan increasingly became a haven for radical Indian nationalists in exile, who were protected by patriotic Japanese societies. Notable among these included [[Rash Behari Bose]], [[Tarak Nath Das]], [[A. M. Sahay]] as well as others. The protections offered to these nationalists effectively prevented British efforts to repatriate them and became a major policy concern.<ref>{{Harvnb|Dignan|1983|p= }}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Brown|1986|p=421}}</ref>

==Indian Independence Committee==
The IIC was formally disbanded in November 1918, with most of its members becoming closely associated with [[Communism]] and the [[Soviet Union]].<ref name=Strachan815>{{Harvnb|Strachan|2001|p=815}}</ref> [[Bhupendranath Datta]] and [[V. N. Chatterjee]] arrived in Moscow in 1920. Narendranath Bhattacharya, under a new identity of [[M. N. Roy]] was amongst the first Indian communists and made a memorable speech in the second congress of the [[Communist International]] that rejected Leninist thesis and foreshadowed [[Maoist]] peasant movements.<ref name=Tinker9293>{{Harvnb|Tinker|1968|p=92,93}}</ref> Chatterjee himself was in Berlin till 1932 as the general secretary of the [[League Against Imperialism]] and was able to convince [[Jawaharlal Nehru|Nehru]] to affiliate [[Indian National Congress]] with the league in 1927.He later fled [[Nazi Germany]] for [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Soviet Russia]] but disappeared in 1937 under Stalin's [[Great Purge]].<ref name=Fraser269>{{Harvnb|Fraser|1977|p=269}}</ref>

==Ghadar Party==

The Ghadar Party, suppressed during the war, revived itself in 1920 and openly declared its communist beliefs. Although sidelined in California, it remained relatively stronger in East Asia, where it allied itself with the [[Chinese Communist Party]].<ref name=Fraser269/><ref name=Deepak441>{{Harvnb|Deepak|1999|p=441}}</ref>

==Later efforts==
{{Main|Indian Independence League|Indian National Army|Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind}}
Although the conspiracy failed during World War I and the movement suppressed at the time with a number of its key leaders hanged or incarcerated, a number of prominent Ghadarites also managed to flee India to Japan and Thailand. The concept of a revolutionary movement for independence also found a revival amongst later generation Indian leaders, most notably [[Subhas Chandra Bose]] who, towards the mid-1930s began calling for a more radical approach towards colonial domination. During World War II, a number of these leaders were instrumental in seeking [[Axis powers of World War II|Axis support]] to revive such a concept.<ref>{{Harvnb|Lebra|1977|p=23}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Lebra|1977|p=24}}</ref> Bose himself, from the very beginning of World War II actively evaluated the concept of revolutionary movement against [[the Raj]], interacting with Japan and subsequently escaping to Germany to raise an Indian armed force, the [[Indische Legion]], to fight in India against Britain.<ref name=ThomsonBBC>{{cite web
| author = Thomson M
| publisher = bbc.co.uk
| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3684288.stm
| title= Hitler's secret Indian Army
| date=September 23, 2004
| accessdate=2007-09-02
}}</ref> He would later return to South East Asia to take charge of the [[Indian National Army]] which was formed following the labour of exiled nationalists, efforts from within Japan to revive a similar concept, and the direction and leadership of people like [[Mohan Singh Deb|Mohan Singh]], [[Giani Pritam Singh]], [[Rash Behari Bose]]. The most famous of these saw the formation of the [[Indian Independence League]], the [[Indian National Army]] and ultimately the [[Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind]] in South East Asia.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fay|1993|p=90}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| author =
| publisher = National Archives of Singapore| url=http://www.s1942.org.sg/s1942/indian_national_army/revival.htm| title= Historical Journey of the Indian National Army
| year= 2003
| accessdate=2007-07-07
}}</ref>
{{See also|Indische Legion}}

==Notes and references==
{{Unreferenced section|date=February 2018}}

{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Impact of the Hindu-German Conspiracy}}
[[Category:Hindu–German Conspiracy]]
[[Category:Indian-American history]]
[[Category:Indian independence movement]]
[[Category:Japan–United Kingdom relations]]
[[Category:Revolutionary movement for Indian independence]]
[[Category:South Asian American organizations]]
[[Category:United Kingdom–United States relations]]