It took more than 200 years for India to shake the oppressive rule of the British. Britain seized control of Indian territory until they controlled the whole sub-continent. At first india was treasured by the British more for its potential rather than its actual profit. Its 300 million people were also a large potential market for British made products. Although Britain created sound law against killing, economic opportunities and health related advancements they caused more harm than good. Granted Dr. Lalvani would say the british created an unblemished government that worked in everyone’s favor it was oppressive towards Indian people due to the fact that they were not involved in the making of laws that directly affected them. In paragraph …show more content…
Dr. Lalvani stated Indian Railways today is the world’s largest employer with 1.6 million employees. Also during Imperialism laid down 10,000 miles of railroad tracks to export Indian goods and natural resources to Britain. The railways were also good for communication and travel. They also protected wildlife and important buildings like the Taj Mahal as to preserve the Indian culture. But the British pushed cash crops which increased wealth for the indian and british economy however it degraded the indian lands and made it hard to grow when the british left( doc.6). Because of cheap british good many to all weavers lost their jobs and became impoverished as said in document 3. So yes the british showed they could control an economy very well however they could not control the ruined land and people. Despite the fact Britain created sound laws against killing, economic opportunities and improved the health of most indians they still caused more harm than …show more content…
In paragraph 11 talks about the British bringing english law and language; there were more than 102 languages in India so communication wasn’t the easiest between people, they also built very fine universities that gave opportunities for people to learn. Indain literacy still went up by ten percent when the british left and it kept going up( doc. 5). But the british still prevented lots of death with the laws against thuggee, suttee and female infanticide right? No because overall around 58.73 million people died from famines caused by the exportation of the good indians grew themselves( doc.7). They also made it hard for Indians to grow food after the British left as said in document 6. So the british did create laws against killing but they also created laws that killed millions and degraded the land. And so
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Shown in document 6, he complained to the English that “You have given us no responsibility in our own government.” Lot of money was taken from the people to support the British government. Later India became dependant on Britain's goods coming in. The British encouraged farmers to grow cash crops causing famine in the country, many starved to death. Also racism was a huge deal because the British saw them as a lower class and having a different culture caused the people to be treated like slaves.
Throughout the rule of the British in India, Europeans mainly controlled the government and police force, leaving the Indians with no voice and no protection. According to Dr. Lalvani, the British established an efficient administration over 500 million people. While this was beneficial to the British, the Indians had no control over the taxations and laws that affected them (Doc. #2). Since all of these laws and taxes were targeted to help the British, India’s freedom was stolen, as shown in the Rowlatt Act, a law that allowed the government to imprison people without trial.
The Anglo Saxon era was justified with a very long term of push and pull of power among its early beginnings during 449 CE. Initially being a Germanic led country, the literature of the Dark Ages was very versed in song and migrated with the nomadic tribes that first accommodated within the area of the English Channel. During the preceding four centuries, the area was held as a province of the Roman empire, and never held a single leader with the external conflicts that were occurring between power nations and northern tribes during the time period. During Rome’s possession of Britain, their region remained an important colonial outpost.
India was most impacted by British imperialism because the poverty
According to Dr.Lalvani, the British were “superbly efficient” in their duties. However, they only let 6% of the entire government be native Indian( Doc. 2). Which makes it virtually impossible for them to have a say in anything major or minor. When the Rowlatt act was passed, prohibiting gatherings of groups. Many groups continued to gather despite the act, many being violent (Lalvani).
The British rulers of India helped settle 500 million diverse peoples with different religions all over India during their rulership, providing stronger communities held together by values of religion (Paragraph 6). However, the people of India were given little to no responsibility of themselves and their own nation (Document 1). Meaning the British also created a great divide of the native people and the British imperialists get to dictate what taxes and laws exist, all of which to only better the lives of themselves and did not pertain to the basic human needs for the people who actually lived in India. Paragraph 12 shows that the British did bring several different states of India into one unified nation to help establish an effective justice system, civil service, loyal army, and efficient police force to protect the people of India. On the other hand, document 2 shows that the Indians had no say in the taxes they had to pay to the British or how they spent their money as a nation.
Britain brought to India things such as railroads, canals, railways, and telegraphs and allowed for the establishment of schools for the people (Doc1). Another good thing the British did for India was the wave of peace and the fact that they helped politically and maintained order (Doc2). On the same hand, the British also introduced Western education and brought ideas of modernization in every aspect; they introduced courts of justice and
Dr. Lavani has made claims that the British passed the torch of their rule peacefully to India, that they built a beautiful justice system, that the British proposed fair trade, built 10,000 miles of train tracks, that the british extended indian life expectancies and built great universities. While most of these claims hold truth, these systems were always used in british favor. England divided India and kept her bound with a biased court of law. England took away her wealth on trains and force fed it back to her at a price. England taxed India 's people heavily, causing famines and England educated only those that could benefit it.
Question Were the American colonists justified in declaring independence from the British? I think the American colonist were justified in declaring their independence. First, the British unfairly taxed the colonist. Secondly, the British made unfair laws.
People depict the American Revolution in terms of Patriots and Loyalists – those who supported the rebellion, patriots, and those who supported the British government, loyalists. Brittan has robbed us clean of our food, money, houses, and our rights, even after we helped them defeat the French in the war. I believe we should rebel against Brittan and fight for our rights, independence, and freedom. Parliament keeps enforcing taxes and restrictions, they killed our brethren in the Boston massacre, and conjured up a war. Assertion 1: First, Brittan keeps piling taxes and restrictions, one after the other, such as The Stamp act, The Quartering act, and The Proclamation of 1763.
India was dominant towards the cotton textile industry trade, which motivated England to take the opportunity of forcibly removing all indigenous competition: “...the British who most fully took advantage of the collapse of the empire. Between 1757 and 1803, they took control of most of India except the Northwest. The result was that the East India Company now administered major sectors of the economy, and quickly reduced the role of the big Indian bankers by changes in taxes and methods of collecting them. ”(Mukherjee) By eliminating any further competition at their weakest moment, England lowered India’s economy and chances of industrializing.
They gave them no say in their taxation at all. Britain rule was bad because it made the Indians extremely poor and left them with no money for food. It also impacted India in a negative way because all their soil for farming was destroyed and they also built railroads right in the middle of the towns. These railroads were used to benefit Britain because it made shipping materials and trade easier for them. Lastly, British rule caused lots of deaths from famine.
Soon after the arrival of an Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci in 1499, the Europeans quickly began making maps for their new project. They then began to send travelers to explore the new-found land. The British have had a monumental impact on our culture as we know it, in several ways. Most people would argue that the British were inhumane and forced their beliefs onto others, because they were known for claiming land and taking it as their own with no remorse. To some extent we can thank the British empire for showing what characteristics we do and do not want in the “New World”.
Manufacture in India was strictly forbidden. The British also heavily manipulated the currency and the exchange ratio, which drained millions from India. Document 8, written by Gandhi, explains to us how India can become free. He would organize large peaceful protests to defy British law and rule. He potentially sacrificed his own life for the good of others.
In the article Lalvani states that, the British “established the framework for India’s justice system, civil service, loyal army and efficient police force”. The British may have set up a government but the framework, however, did not include Indians. “ Of 960 civil offices...900 are occupied by Englishmen and only 60 by natives” (Doc 2). In no way are 60 voices of a race considered ‘savage’ going to overpower 900 white men, who could easily kill them for taking a stand, or trying to change the unjust laws that are