Do You Agree with the View Expressed in Source H That the Concessions Made to Indian Democracy by 1919 Were Given Simply to Shore Up the British Raj?

“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”

The general cause of the Indian Independence Movement was India’s desire for independence from British, French and Portuguese Rule. The aim of the movement was “Swaraj, a self-governing India” (Sharma, 2005, p. 22). One, more specific, cause of the Indian Independence Movement took place in 1905 when the province of Bengal was divided into two provinces,

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

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

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.

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.

The westernization of India was beneficial to India. The most influential thing was the introduction of Enlightenment ideas and a western-style democracies; which has proven to be one of the most successful models in history. This made them one of the most effective colonies and post colonial countries. One of the best examples of western political thought surfacing in India was the formation of the Indian National Congress. The Indian National Congress was made up of western-educated Indians, who had been taught the ways of the enlightenment. They initially advocated for self-rule within the British Empire. After the Amritsar Massacre in which the soldiers hired by the East India Trading Company fired on unarmed protesters, they began protesting for complete independence from Britain. The system they wanted to install to run India was a Western-Style democracy/republic. The Indian National Congress is still in existence today and played an instrumental role in setting up India’s current democratic government.

The country of India only got a democracy when the British left (Effects of British Imperialism on India).

Recognizing India’s partition between Hindus and Muslims as a step towards war, the British government quickly withdrew and allowed India to gain independence and settle its own affairs, an insightful choice as it ultimately avoided a civil war. Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohandas Gandhi both sought an independent,

Through the study of human history it is evident authoritative and monarch governments prevailed as legitimate authorities but with careful considerations these political systems were seen as inaccurate by many. New political systems, functions and responsibilities soon began to surface. Democracy was among these new political systems and argues for the influence of citizens in politics and the protection of rights (Dahl, 1998, p. 44). Democracy can be found through many political systems around the world particularly in first world countries such as Canada and the United States of America. Fortunately the notions of democracy can also be found in some developing countries such as India. ¬¬¬Although democratic views and notions are found throughout Indian politics and its associated practices India does not prove to be completely democratic in relation to Robert Dahl’s criteria of democracy highlighted in his book, On Democracy. Robert Dahl, a political scientist and professor, sets up 5 criteria of democracy that includes effective participation, voting equality, enlightened understanding, inclusion and control of agenda (Dahl, 1998, p. 36-7). He argues that a sense of true democracy is founded when all 5 criteria of democracy are fulfilled (Dahl, 1998, p. 36). Unfortunately India is unable to accommodate the criteria of voting equality and effective participation due to its

During the first half of India 's democracy the elected officials primary concern was the welfare of the nation. They used the power of their offices to improve India was a nation. This new uncorrupt democracy was about to change when Mrs. Gandhi got rid of elected officials at her pleasure and replaced them with trusted family members and other politicians that were obedient to her. She did this as a security measure to secure her position in government. For the next twenty years the people of India would watch as politicians formed alliances and manipulated government for their own security, which ironically usually ended up in them being killed by their rivals. This turned India from a land of non-violence, into a land of assassins, bombings, bulletproof windows, and armed police. The criminals that politicians used to secure their positions would soon be in positions of power themselves. Soon caste system would be used against caste system, and religion against religion. The Indian army, the third largest standing army in the world, which is remarkably

The reform activities united people and the attack on institutions like caste which hampered social unity created a sense of oneness in the people. But most of these reform movements had certain limitations. The questions to which they gave primacy concerned only small sections of Indian society. Some of them failed to emphasize or even recognize that colonial rule was inimical to the interests of the Indian people. Most of them worked within the framework of their respective communities in a way tended to promote identities based on religion or caste. Many of these limitations were sought to be overcome during the course of the national movement with which many social and religious reformers were closely associated. Indian nationalism

If it succeeds, its influence on Asia is incalculable for good. Whatever the outcome we must honour those who attempt it. Even more meaningful was the opinion expressed by an American Constitutional authority, Granville Austin, who wrote that what the Indian Constituent Assembly began was ‘perhaps the greatest political venture since that originated in Philadelphia in 1787.’