GOVERNING AFRICA 141 that unhelpful example. The starting point, then, will be a consideration of how India was seen as a warning to officials and government ministers - what might happen if things went wrong. To others, of course, to the critics of empire, and there were significant groups of anti-colonial critics in Britain,2 India was an example of the way forward in the colonies, an inspiration indeed, and in the post-war period Indian independence did become a catalyst for change elsewhere in the British Empire. A further theme that will be studied in the course of the paper relates to the effects of war, a particular focus being policies relating to constitutional changes and ideas about elements of self-government. The discussion here will be about Africa, but the study will allude to India at various points - how civil servants, ministers and policy advisers saw Africa in the context of changes in India. THEMES AND APPROACHES In simple terms the choices concerning the nature of future government and administration in Africa which confronted ministers and officials in the period 1938 to 1947 were between a continuation of indirect rule through Native Authorities, a gradual development of parliamentary systems on the Westminster model, or a third way which was neither of these, but perhaps change through a reformed set of Native Authorities. It is important to note that the paper is not looking either at independence, or at steady moves to independence, the argument is put that for most of the period, most people of influence in the Colonial Office, in the government more widely, and in the colonies assumed the continuance of colonial rule for a very long time: and a number of policy makers talked of permanence until quite late in the day. What officials were looking for was increasing African involvement of one sort or another. At issue were the nature of that involvement, and the nature of governmental structures either at local or at central level. Thus the paper takes a very different view from Flint, who argues that there was a gradual move to independence starting just before the Second World War,3 and it has a different focus from that of Pearce: he sees a turning point around 1947, and although showing a complex picture earlier, has as his main focus issues of decolonization.4 Neither writer is very clear on the extent to which the Westminster model was the main aim during the period 1938 to 1947. Lee seems to be undecided on some of the issues: on the one hand he says that India was regarded before the war as a problem, as having