Advantages And Disadvantages Of Orientalism And Orientianism

The British East India Company took over India because of all the resources that they had. when the company made the Indians join a military they rebelled and started firing back at the British and then the company “called” the British government and they came with big guns to take control and regain India for themselves. British imperialism has a negative impact on the politics of india because of the British courts and the government wasn't far toward the indians. British imperialism had a negative impact on the economy of India because the British did not help the environment and they made railroads to take away from the land. British imperialism had a positive impact on the economy of India because the British eliminated highway robberies,

“India has never been a symbol of unity of Hindu-Muslim civilization. It is not possible for the British Government to create homogeneity between Hindu and Muslim culture and civilization as the two systems are distinctively opposed to each other. There is no way other than the partition of India”

British imperialism had a negative impact on the politics of India because of the establishment of the framework for India that leads to their downfall and the Indian Army which they used to control their own kind. According to Dr.Lalvani, the British established the framework for India’s justice system, civil services, loyal army, and the efficient loyal police. (Paragraph #6). While this is true, the framework didn’t include the Indians, because “Of 960 civil offices, 900 are occupied by English men and 60 by natives”(Doc. #2). British laws often benefited the British and were designed to limit the freedom of speech of the Indians, for example, the Rowlatt Act in 1919. (Gandhi). This evidence shows that the British, when creating the framework for the new and improved India wanted to benefit from it while trying to lower the Indian’s and limit the

(Document 5) This shows that even though Britain gave education to Indians they only gave it to who could afford it and hardly anyone could. Lalvani claims that over the 200 year span of British imperialism, India’s religions felt safer and less discriminated against. ( According to Dr.Lalvani) Although the British thought this was true it actually was not. Christians were mocking and discriminating against Muslims and Hindus. (Gandhi) Similarly Hinduism believes in nonviolence so when the protest at Amritsar took place the Indians were brutally slaughtered while being unarmed. (Gandhi) Because of their non-violence beliefs the Hindus had no defense and were killed by what they thought was their

Dr. Lalvani claims that “Indians success, is largely due to British imperial rule.” The British didn't just establish the framework for the justice system for India but it established the civil service, loyal army and efficient police force (Document

The only thing they had an interest in was their own profit and not the well-being of Indians. Lalvani said that the British’s push to make India a great country was “superbly efficient” and maybe it was, but like Gandhi says in Document 1, “You have given us no responsibility of our own government.” The people of India never got to prove themselves; Britain was already so advanced before that, that India had no time to play catch up or stand up for themselves. Britain created the foundation for India’s various government systems (Lalvani). Out of the 960 civil offices, 900 of them had British tenants (Doc 2). So in a since it is true that Britain set up the systems but it also shows that there was an unequal say in how India should have been governed and gave no Indians any room to help. Keeping in mind the Englishmen had no genuine interest in India’s people which led to even more unjust laws natives had to comply

British Imperialism had a negative impact on the politics of India because the British took away control of the country for their benefit and enforced laws that discriminated against Indians. Lavani claims the British “established the framework for India’s justice system, civil service, loyal army, and efficient police force.” However, this framework was not intended for the Indians, but for the British. For example, 94% of government positions were held by Englishman (Doc. #2). These people had “no permanent interest in their well-being” and returned to England after “forty-five or fifty-five years of age with large pensions (Doc. #2).” This shows the British government used India as a source of wealth and controlled the people without

India and America, now two of the largest established countries in the world, were once coerced into being pawns in a greater British Empire at on time or another. America being settled through the crown’s permission and India’s trade being influenced heavily to the point of British incorporation in the mid-1700’s. Both watched as the British stepped over to force the ruled into submission per the Crown’s benefit. America had to deal with “Taxation without representation” in which the populace was unfairly overtaxed to pay for British debts while Indians withstood attacks against their culture, religions and personal independence while having their resources syphoned out, subjecting the people to British decisions and customs without any consideration for the governed. These two scenarios not only mean different methods of gaining

It did bring: western-style secondary schools, western technology, such as railroads and medical knowledge, great security and order, relatively honest and efficient government

Though it is a fact that the British in India administered an efficient government and civil services, these actions ultimately hurt the Indians because of the British dominated parliament and the administration of oppressive laws. Dr. Lalvani claims that while in power, the British governed 500 million people of diverse religions in a “superbly efficient” manor. The reason that British India was efficient was because the British held complete control. The Indian government contained only 6% of native Indian officials, while the overwhelming majority were British foreigners (Doc #2). This lead to laws that hurt the Indians and helped the British such as laws like the Salt Act that devastated Indian taxes and revenue (Doc #2). This is significant because it does not matter if the British government was effective if it oppressed the Indian majority with little representation and unfair laws.

Source 16 is a lot more one sided compared to source 15. Source 16 mainly believes that it is British imperialism that is preventing Indian Independence. This source is from W.O. Simpson, from ‘changing horizons’, which was published in 1986. One of the most obvious quotes backing up the hatred towards British Imperialism is, “The idea, and the Government of India Act that emerged on 1935, was strongly opposed by one faction in the Conservative Party, which formed itself into the Imperial Defence League.” This Defence League tried to prevent the Act being passed but it was unsuccessful in its efforts, and the Act was passed. “The Act was attacked both in Britain for going too far”. If Britain didn’t go as far as they did with the act they would have had a more successful reign. In this source there is a quote that suggests that divisions within India that was stopping Indian Independence. “in India for not going far enough”. This quote suggests that India didn’t believe the Act wasn’t taken out as much as they would have liked. Round table conferences did prove that congress didn’t speak for all of India, and due to the minority of the Muslims in India the 1937 elections were very nerve racking for the Muslims. If Congress came into power they would have been in a very bad situation. The Muslim League needed to win over all of the Muslims and make sure the trials can become fair.

Britain became the vast and mighty Empire upon which the sun never set through the development and use of what is, in modern terms, referred to as Imperialism. The British approach to the colonization of India came out of: the European, specifically British, superiority mindset; the practical approach of attaining resources in return for modernization and “guardianship”; and the solidification of Britain as the world’s dominating force. Britain’s use of Imperialism, as a necessity to maintain its Empire, acted as the catalyst of the Indian Rebellion.

Britain had a desire to have a more economic, political, and social influence over India. Even though the British never preserved a notable military existence in India, they were able to maintain political control. Many changes were made, which benefitted India, but there were also some changes, which contributed to its deterioration. Despite the negative impacts Britain left on India, imperialism is best understood as a strong country extending its authority, in order to increase its wealth, by bringing more of the world under its control, because Britain helped in the development of India from a nation-state, to a unified country, which is modernly the world’s largest democracy.

Throughout the years many historians have compilated and examined why Indian people were so desperate to gain back their independence from the British Empire during their rule over India, from 1612 to 1947. The reasoning can most definitely be found as the British discriminated against Indian people as they believe that they were inferior; it is no surprise that Indian people fought so hard for their independence. Throughout the British Raj, they placed and put forward unbelievably racist acts and laws which discriminated against Indian people. Which of course led to Indians to rebel against the British rule and which the British reacted with causing massacres. Explaining the nationalistic many India’s felt during the British Raj.

Liberal and democratic aspects of British colonialism in India played a significant role in leading to a democratic South Asia following Indian independence in 1947. Yet, the British -- first through the East India Company and then through direct government control -- held almost all of the political and economic power in India during the Empire’s expansion and apogee, guaranteeing the Indian economy could not evolve and/or function independent of the ruling power’s control; ensuring raw materials extracted from Indian soil would go towards British manufacturing industries mostly without profiting the vast majority of Indians; and leading to lives of privation for millions of indigenous subjects. Although there have been arguments made that, in political and