The British took all political power from the Indian government. For example of the 960 civil offices that controlled the civil administration of India, 900 were ran by British Men and the other 60 offices were ran by the natives of India (Doc. 2). Also the Indians had no power to change taxation (Doc. 2). In document 1 it says “For a hundred years you have done everything for us. You have given us no responsibility for our own government.”…
All three sources offer support that suggests that the rule of the British was based upon respect and support from the Indian people. Source 12 does however seem to contradict the idea that the support of the Indians was important in establishing good British rule.…
a. He says “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” He was saying that it is morally right to explain why they were separating from the crown.…
Many people believe that in the 1940’s most of India’s problems involving independence was to do with divisions within India rather than British imperialism. In this essay I will be looking at both points of view and finally giving my opinion. I will be using three sources also to help me show both sides of the story. I will also be using my further knowledge to add a wider range of knowledge.…
To a certain extent sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that the British rule was accepted in India. Source A shows efforts were made to improve the relationship between India and Britain but ultimately it implies that the viceroy should try not ‘to trample on the people’. Source 2, similar to source 1 implies that India had no freedom and India was in no ‘position to gain our independence’. Source 3 however, is an image displaying the Indian people appreciating their princes in a coronation. The divide between Britain and India is very dominant despite the evidence of source 3.…
[ 7 ]. E. Thompson and E.T. Garratt, History of British rule in India, Volume 2, (Cambridge,1999), pp. 426…
Have you ever heard of a country invading another country, but not settling? Well, that’s exactly what happened when the British started trading with India. They British's method left little room for error as they took control of India, it's military, it's material, and its land. It was only after 200 years that India tried break free from the British rule. India demanded independence because, they were forced to fight in a war for democracy and they were not granted their own freedom.…
The British established and efficient government ran by Englishmen. Dr. Lalvani says that “The British administration of India, a country then with a…
“It is essential, therefore, for a Prince who desires to maintain his position, to have…
The new government immediately announced that it sought an early realization of self-government in India. India finally achieved its independence from England in August 1947. Mountbatten Plan calls for the partition of India into the country as a liberation, dividing the it into two dominions, India and Pakistan. Gandhi’s proposal’s helped the country achieve independence, since his hopes and also his campaigns helped India.…
Before the First World War, there was little influence on the Indians desire for independence from the British. Analysing the three sources it can be indicated that the impact of the First World War was the main trigger placing these desires and strengthening them. However they tend to disagree to some extent and also are of different Nature, Origin and Purpose which can undermine their reliability.…
The Indian Independence Act of 1947 marked a watershed upon the history of India and imperialism, predicating the protracted, but evident, retreat of empire. A body of influences are readily available in providing a depth of understanding of the event; it is, however, the permeating legacy of the Indian national congress that has been routinely identified as a political organisation synonymous with the departure of empire and colonialism. The remit of this essay focuses our attention upon the development and narrative of the Indian National Congress, and the use of its political structure in exercising and mobilising nationalist sentiments…
A major aim was to represent the might of the Empire ruled by the British. In the words of Herbert Baker, “First and foremost it is the spirit of British sovereignty which must be imprisoned in its stone and bronze”. Another important consideration was the need to establish a connection with the long tradition of Delhi as a capital of empires, and of the several cities established by successive dynasties in the Delhi triangle. A third consideration was to express British rule as a unifying force, bringing together the diversity of India – in its people and their culture, arts, and traditions; and blending it with what were considered to be the benign and beneficial effect of western influence. Contemporary British imperialists believed, as Baker put it, “British rule in India is not…
India, throughout history, has been subject to numerous cases of persecution, subjugation, conquest and oppression. Successful conquest of India is a difficult yet lucrative investment and can easily help supplement and revitalise an economy through the trade of its bountiful natural resources. Despite India’s monetary value, the Official British policy stated there were ulterior motives for its conquest of India, such as the fulfilment of the British policy of ‘White Man’s Burden’; with the eventual aim of establishing an Indian self-government. It can however be suggested, that such seemingly sincere claims were merely fabricated as a means of providing a stable source of trade for the British economy or as a means of further imposing British imperialist dominance across Europe.…
The Introduction to the Act says that it has been enacted to assist State Governments which were incapable to maintain internal disturbance. However the act has been widely criticized by national and international human rights agencies. When United Nations Human Rights Committee questioned the validity of AFSPA in 1991 under Indian Law and in light of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Indian Govt. harped on the fact that it is necessary to prevent the secession of the North Eastern states. A brief recap of history will tell us that these states were forcefully made a part of the Indian Republic after 1947 by signing various agreements with a view of their strategic significance. These states could never be fully integrated in our country’s mainstream due to vast differences in social structure, culture, language, facial features and geographical remoteness. Furthermore, the government…