Direct and Indirect Rule

During the Classical period, Han China and Mauryan/Gupta India developed many methods of political control. Although these empires were located in different geographic regions, they both used social hierarchy, language, bureaucracy, and religion as a means of political control. Many of Classical India’s religious beliefs and bureaucratic practices contrasted each other in relation to the ways that they supported the methods of political control.

We have seen through lectures and through this book the dangers of imperialism. The use of indirect leaders leads to very little reprentation in government and therefore not a whole lot of say for those who are being colonized. We see the negative consequences of Imperialism very stated in colonial India.

Often people like to defend that “The world’s largest democracy… Is largely due to British imperial rule” (Lalvani), however of “960 civil offices… 900 are occupied by Englishmen and only 60 by natives” (Doc 2). While India might have had a strong government and democracy, only 6% was actually controlled by Indians meaning Englishmen had nearly all of the control. Regardless of the fact that it was the Indian’s land and government- the British took their voice and power away from them. Some may also argue that “The British established framework for India’s justice system, civil service, loyal army, and efficient police force” (Lalvani), however taxes were still being increased despite knowing most Indians couldn’t even provide food for themselves (Doc 3). India was only being used for profit.

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

The British constructed an impressively efficient government along with India’s army, however the government and army were used to create unjust laws and control Indians by force. This government they created was “Superbly efficient” all Britain to control 500 million subjects across 17,000 square miles. (Dr Lalvani) This may seem impressive and beneficial to the Indians, but only 60 out of 960 government positions were actually occupied by Indians. (Document 2) This meant that Britain could do anything they to desired to India because it’s people had no control over their own government. To enforce these laws or policies britain constructed India’s armies. This laid the framework for India’s justice system, civil service and efficient police force. The soldiers were trained in new military academies, courtesy of the British. Although, the intention for creating these services were to establish an even tighter hold on India as demonstrated in the Amritsar Massacre, were the Indian army was ordered by a British commander to shoot Indians, killing 400 and wounding 12,00. (Gandhi) This showed how easily Britain could suppress and control India because India had no control over its own

While the British Imperial rule established the framework for India's justice system. They also created the Indian army and created military academies to train officers. This lead to the British controlling the Indian government, as well as their army. The British Imperial rule established the framework of indians justice system. However the framework did not include many Indians, 900 british and 60 Indians(Gandhi). (Doc #2)The British

Analyze similarities and differences in methods of political control in two of the following empires from 600 BCE to 600 CE (Han China, Mauryan/Gupta India, Imperial Rome).

In the case of politics in Africa and India, both were completely different because of how they were ruled by the European nations. In Africa the natives thought they had political power, but the reality was that all politics, and decisions were made by the European’s. The natives thought that the leaders, and chiefs were making the decisions, but the indirect governing style the Europeans were using on their territories was to do exactly this. They tricked the public to keep the peace and avoided any revolts or rebellion from taking place in the country. The same cannot be said about India though. In India the direct governing style was in place. This meaning that all the previous leaders, and officials were replaced by the European officials,

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.

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.

Singapore and Malaysia were both similarly colonized by the British. However, their development after independence differed in many ways. In this paper, I will examine, with help from resources provided in the course and minimal research, how their colonial experiences affected their political and social development after independence. After which, investigating the depth of influence their colonizers had, and why, differing racial ideologies had the greatest impact on their development.

Imperialism has been noted to be practice of foreign rule in a context of hierarchy and subordination, which can eventually lead to the formation of an empire. Imperialism refers directly to the enhancement of power and military superiority.

Prestige is all for them and they would do everything to get it. Maybe Orwell’s real impression of the Burmese wasn’t as positive as one could think while reading the passages about the behaviour of the English, sometimes he even seems to loathe the Burmese, but then again his Marxist ideas force him to write in favour of the socially disgraced. Orwell points out this conflict very consciously, as his own comment on his service in Burma proofs: “I was in the Indian Police for five years, and by the end of that time I hated the imperialism I was serving with a bitterness which I probably cannot make clear. [...] I had reduced everything to the simple theory that the oppressed are always right and the oppressors are always wrong: a mistaken theory, but the natural result of being one of the oppressors yourself. I felt I had got to escape not merely from imperialism but from every form of man’s dominion over man." (George Orwell)

How should an empire assert their claim to territory and how should they govern it? This question is important because there are a number of methods an empire could employ presiding over a colony. For example the French empire employed a system call direct rule. The French rulers wanted to assimilate or incorporate the peoples of West Africa . The British however preferred a system called indirect rule and it was applied to many of their West African colonies including Nigeria and Ghana. It has proven to be detrimental to problems in Africa and can be linked to the political past of the British colonial government. The goal of this paper is to expose the reasons for indirect rule in British colonies and the negative impact of post colonial development in West Africa.

India is the biggest democracy in the world, with a government type of federal republic. The country’s form of government mimics the United States with its federal structure. The federal government consists of executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In addition, India has adopted the a British style parliamentary system that allows for it its central government to have great power in relation to its states, according to US Department of State- Background Notes website (The Office of Electronic