British Imperialism Dbq

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

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.

While the British assumed control over India, they created the advanced infrastructure of its newly founded political system and military with the sole purpose to restricted the native population. According to Lalvani, all of India’s standards for its justice system, civil service, army and police force were all set by the British imperialist. Although the framework was set to have an efficient way of governing the native land and population, it did not include Indians and instead served the needs of englishmen. Out of 960 civil offices, 900 positions were occupied by englishmen and only the remaining 60 were filled by natives (Doc.2.) Ultimately, through the creation of heavy taxation and freedom restricting laws that only affected the Indian

The relationship between the domestic and the foreign characterises Early Modern representations of Anglo-American imperialism. By definition, the domestic pertains to the home country or household, and that which concerns oneself. The foreign is the antithesis of this, something considered to be unfamiliar and alien. As Eric Cheyfitz has asserted, this relationship was the grounding colonial ‘desire of what names itself domestic to dominate what it simultaneously distinguishes as foreign’ and figurative. This implies that the process of deciding the domestic from the foreign lies within the control of whatever faction wishes to gain dominance, thus the distinguishing factor begins as a question of perception and discourse. This dynamic certainly

Britain added 22 more civil bases but 900 of the 960 were in control by white men who had no real interest in the betterment and well-being of India (Lalvani, Doc 1). In 100 years, Indians were never really given a chance to make their own government and became dependent on the over controlling British rule (Doc 1).

You may think Imperialism is not a big deal in india. But in a matter of a fact it was a very very very big deal. British imperialism in India is the most suitable example how one nation can make use of another nation through total control for very big amounts of profit. Imperialism had a lot of effects on india and I mean a lot some and most of them were positive but there was also a little bit that happened to be negative as well.

When Britain wormed their way into controlling India, Indians had no say or voice in this conquest. While Britain made it appear as if they were helping India by westernizing and administering them, they were actually stripping India of natural resources, safe life for civilians, and a access to a loyal army. Britain considered India to be extremely beneficial on account of their plentiful resources, and huge population. By controlling India, Britain would receive great profit and it was extremely simple to take over because India had no power. After the East India Company took over, a government organization that was indirectly ruled by Britain Indians lost control of their country. The resources in India were required by Britain because of the mass amount of machinery in Britain used for the new and growing, industrial revolution. Although Britain may

To this day, India remains part of the British Commonwealth. The customs of railway usage and trade stick within the Indian economy. Religious views will always very in regards to personal opinion but overall the British political views were implemented and instilled to carry on for generations. Speaking from personal opinion, Iam Native American. With that people said my people have seen some of what was viewed as negative in the ways of losing one’s culture to conform to the ways of life of others, but I view that as something that happens with life and If imperialism was such as negative thing to many it would be crazy to say why so many customs and ways of life stick with the culture today.

Although many agree that British rule expedited Indian democracy by postulating an efficient structure, the conception that democracy is a British legacy is disputed. As seen with Pakistan, of a comparable background to India, the nation has been under imbedded or unambiguous military rule during its independence period. India’s national movement made the British uncertain about the legitimacy of their rule by enquiring superiority in their own political institutions. As a democracy exasperating to control an empire, Britain found that its liberalism was progressively pending into divergence with its

Egypt was a colony of Britain, British imperialism began in 1882. Egypt experienced suffocation of liberties. Egypt was ruled by Britain by indirect rule because Britain took control of the existing political structures and economies while the khedives provided native autonomy. Britain's interference with Egypt threatened Egypt’s social and political structure, especially the military. In 1881, Colonel Ahmad lead a rebellion against European intrusion. Britain then sent ships to Egypt to ensure their occupation over it. This reduced the size of the Egyptian army and Britain then their officers in command to control the Egyptian government. Britain made new laws for the Egyptians which included the restriction of Egypt's economic development

The Indian National Congress has already foreseen the Ware Danger and prepared the country to resist the Indian manpower and resources from being utilized for the purpose of British Imperialism. The manpower and resources vested in the First World War has already threatened India and suffered from exploitation. They condemned the transfer of troops from India to the war theaters. The proclamation of the Viceroy of 3rd September 1940 brought India under the war. To this Congress resented that neither them nor the Indian Legislature was consulted, not even they were informed by the Viceroy before declaring such proclamation for the war.

The British empire, as well as many others, were diminishing, during the post-war era. The focus of this essay is to answer the question debating the relevance of British imperialism on immigrants who enter the United Kingdom during the post-war period. In summary, the answer that will be provided is that imperialism was the main contributor to pulling people towards Britain, yet it was not the only one. On the other hand, the imperial status had no relevance on all the immigrants, and this also will be discussed. Between the years of 1948 and 1962, it has been estimated that 500,000 immigrants from the British Commonwealth entered the United Kingdom. This essay will concentrate on these years and these immigrants, as 1948 saw the opening

In many respects, the Boer War resembles the struggle toward globalization a century later that Friedman describes in The Lexus and the Olive Tree. The British, with their more advanced industry and technology, attempted to pull the Boer Republics away from the Olive tree and into the new global economy, golden straightjacket and all. The British Empire had much at stake in the conflict, and eventually achieved its main goals. It protected its holding at Cape Town, which was essential in order to control the southern trade route to India, and resisted the threats of increased European presence in South Africa as well as the threat of Afrikaner nationalism in Cape Colony and in the Boer Republics that bordered

India was administrative regulated by British for practically a century, with independence from Britain not expanded up until comparatively lately in August 1947. British colonization had an amount of momentous influences on the district, and many of which had permanent legacies on the nation’s economic and social positions. Though some of these effects were helpful and positive for India, many rooted in British imperial benefits being prioritized over domestic benefits, which led to an uneven pattern of expansion and feeble central administration. We will explore legacies of British colonialism in India, and concludes that a century of foreign control may have done more harm than good for the country’s development.

When British imperialism was first introduced to India there appeared to be on the surface, advantages to both sides (Britain and India) however, as time went on the inherent problems that were already deeply embedded in India were highlighted which resulted in India’s move for independence. After analysing this subject, it is clear to see there were initial advantages, many of these advantages quickly turned into disadvantages and it was these disadvantages that led India and its leaders to move for independence. The British Raj initial seemed like it was out to benefit both Britain and India however as time went on it became apparent that the British Raj were only there to benefit Britain.