British Impact on India

“Englishmen.. have given the people of India the greatest human blessing - peace.” (Dutt). Merely coming to India in the 1600s to trade, the British East India Company established trading outposts. After ridding of French influence in India during the Seven Years’ War and having Indians mutiny against British rule, Britain gained full control of India. India has been under the imperialist control of the British until their independence in 1947. British imperialism caused some negative effects on India through poverty and persecution, but retained more of a positive impact due to its massive improvements in the modernization of India and the overall improvement of Indian civilization.

In 1757, Great Britain extended its empire into India. This occupation would not fully end until 1947. In the time between, there were many movements by the Indian people to gain independence from the British. The movement that finally succeeded in winning India’s independence was led by one of the most influential figures of the 20th century, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi’s methods for fighting against the occupation of the British were very different from those of any of the freedom movements before. And that was why it worked. Gandhi did not agree with the general reasoning of the time: that conflicts could be solved through negotiation and forceful resistance.1 Rather, his faith led him to go

The Indian resistance against the British empire is one example of opposition against imperialism. Until 1858, India was controlled by the British East India Company. Thereafter, the crown rule replaced the company rule until 1947. “The slow expansion of the Indian role in public affairs would not have occurred without mounting political pressure from Indian society” (Findley 188). The people of India had tried to cause a reform through a political channel, evident through the slow yet steady participation in political affairs from 1858-1947. In this resistance,

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

While the British set up the framework for India and claimed to peacefully transition India to independence. The British however did not include Indians and caused a lot of death. The British ultimately did more harm than good. British did set up India’s framework for things like the army, police, justice system and civil services (Lalvani). On the other hand the British did not include Indians in the framework. “Of 960 civil officers… 900 had been occupied by englishmen” (Doc 2). That is only about 7 percent that were actually Indian. This means the British did not let the Indians have a say in anything in their country because they had no representation and also they did not include Indians in the framework of their own country so when they gained independence they had to learn to govern themselves because the British had done it for them. Dr. Lalvani also claimed that the British made India's transition to Independence peaceful. That is a blatant lie. According

British imperialized India, by indirectly controlling India until the British thought the indians were of use for the British. When the British learned India could help them politically, economically, and socially . The British realized they couldn’t let the Indians overthrow their role so when riots started breaking out in India, Europe took harsher direct rule over India. India did not benefit from British imperialism either politically, economically, or socially.

(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

Imperialism is the domination of one country of the political, economic, or cultural life of another country. Imperialism is more often than not fueled by two major schools of thought known as nationalism and Social Darwinism. Nationalism is a feeling of pride and devotion to one’s country. This can drive a person to think that their country is the most powerful, and in essence drives that person mad with power and a hunger to conquer, which not ironically is exactly what many countries did. Social Darwinism is the very idea that a more powerful country conquer the smaller countries. “Survival of the fittest,” as the well renowned Charles Darwin used to say. Imperialism is also sometimes sparked by military motives, such as when USA set up

Imperialism is the domination of a weaker country by a stronger country. For instance Britain dominated India and China in the mid 1880s to the beginning of the 20th century. Imperialism has had both a positive and negative effects on the countries involved. Britain was imperialistic for many reasons, it could dominate because it had the technology and power to do so. They also needed land to acquire raw materials for growing markets.

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.

Many positive things happened during, and as a result of, the British colonization of India. When the East India Company took control of India in 1612, they began modernizing, westernizing, and industrializing India. This westernization included giving women more rights, an attempt to eliminate the caste system and the loss of many of the more backward Hindu religious beliefs such as the domination of women by men and denying an entire class of people any rights. British occupation also did things long term for India. The modern technology and western customs allowed India to become a burgeoning regional superpower. The colonization of India was helpful for India because it went a long way to modernize India, westernized India in

This essay will focus on the decolonisation of India by the British Empire and the problems they encountered. It will also aim to bring recognition to the struggle decolonisation brought upon the world after World War II. Pierce states that “after the War concluded, a worldwide process of decolonisation commenced in which Britain granted independence to all of its major colonies, beginning notably in India” (Pierce, 2009). India had struggled with uprisings and conflicts for the many years of British occupation but when Gandhi began sharing his social efforts; the perceptions of colonialism began to change leading to the collapse of the British colonial Empire. Gandhi began changing the lives of regular Indian’s with his popular visions, he also advocated for the people of India in a non-violent

            The internal divisions and complexes hierarchy of the Indian society served an important social function.  The system provided each individual with a clear identity and role and offered the benefits of group solidarity and support.  Certain interactions and behaviors were appropriate only between those of equal status. The system assured that the religious, political, and financial powers were all separated into four different social classes (Bulliet, et. 2011).

Colonization is a controversial matter. This is especially true when it comes to the British, who have colonized nearly every country (only 22 countries have not been settled by Britain). The British presence in India was one of the most controversial of all of their colonizations. Many believe it was positive for the country, others believe it was not. However, the positives far outweigh the negatives: Better infrastructure, Western education, and the British bringing political peace and order.

Ambedkar saw untouchability as the additional product of caste system, and believed that there could not be any uplift or relief from untouchability if there were not the abolition of caste. Moreover, Ambedkar believed that the caste system was actually a division of labourers which simply meant that the caste system is the basis of assigning occupations. This caused a stagnant economy in communities because the system did not allow people to have other professional skills and entered other professions outside the caste group. He said that fixity of occupations hindered the growth and development of the Indian economy and the society. In his thought, people should do the work that is best suited to them to gain the most efficient or else this would lead to immobility of both labour and capital. It could be said that Ambedkar was a challenge to Hinduism. By contrast, Gandhi was a devoted Hindu. He thought that the responsibility of eliminating untouchability should depend on the upper caste. Gandhi goal was not to annihilate the