I am surprised nobody has commented on this yet. But Tony Blair’s foot-dragging on stepping down from power continues an imperial tradition. Britain was just as reluctant to give up its colonies.

The way Blair has been hanging on to office, first saying he will step down before the next election, and now saying he will go next year but still refusing to set a timetable, is in keeping with British history.

Britain tried to appease freedom fighters in times of trouble but cracked down on them whenever it could. Blair’s handling of party rebels has been no different. We will point out the similarities later, but let’s begin with a bit of history.

Britain promised India self-government in 1917 during the First World War, but independence did not come until 30 years later, in 1947. And freedom fighters had to fight every inch of the way. The British cracked down hard after winning the First World War when there was no need for appeasement. Hundreds of unarmed men, women and children were shot dead by soldiers at the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in Amritsar in 1919 for gathering for a local festival despite curfew orders.

Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer who ordered the attack was demoted and eventually forced to resign. But he was praised by the House of Lords! He received money from well-wishers who claimed he had protected the empire! On the contrary, it sparked Mahatma Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement against the British in 1920. But the British were not about to give up.

Sure, there was plenty of talk about eventual self-rule. And Indians were allowed to elect provincial governments. But the British remained masters. And when during the Second World War Gandhi had the audacity to launch the Quit India movement in 1942, he and his followers were thrown into prison.

Britain would not have given up India in 1947, it is said, unless pressured by America and impoverished by the Second World War. It was the first Labour government headed by Clement Attlee that gave India freedom. But the British had their revenge. The country was partitioned into India and Pakistan.

The British would say they had no choice: it was the Muslim League which campaigned for an independent Pakistan. But it was the British who sowed the seeds of division by introducing separate Muslim constituencies.

Divide and rule is an old imperial policy. It was followed in India and no doubt in other former colonies. 

It is still used by Blair. Gordon Brown may be his heir-apparent. But he has been making the succession difficult by promoting others who might become Brown’s rivals for power. And he has not yet set a date for his departure from 10 Downing Street. Pushed into a corner, he has only said he would leave sometime next year. A year is a long time in politics. Who can predict the future?

We have already seen Blair’s remarkable survival skills. Demands for his resignation have been growing since the Iraq war. Yet he has not only survived but won a third term in office — the first Labour prime minister to do so.

He won’t be gently eased out. It will be a thoroughly imperial departure. Even the race card has been brought into play.

Brown is a Scot in an overwhelmingly English Britain and the media are commenting on that.

The conservative Daily Telegraph, condemning the "power-hungry" Brown, said:

"His ruthless behaviour has virtually guaranteed that he will not assume the leadership without a serious contest. The popular (and English) Alan Johnson – who just happened to be at Mr Blair’s side yesterday when the Prime Minister made his announcement – must be assessing his chances."

Blair isn’t going to make life easy for Brown, just as Britain didn’t for India.