Effects Of British Rule On India

Lalvani claims the British "established the framework for India's justice system",in fact they did give them a justice system but it was unfair to indians. Indians were punish way more harsh for the same crimes that the british were doing (doc 4). 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. Cash crops made the land of India worse by poverty and the heat of the

After the Industrial revolution started in Europe the Europeans needed raw material from other countries and from that came the Idea of Imperialism when one country takes over another. Although what the British were doing seemed to be benefiting India was actually doing the opposite. Many things that the Europeans did to India weather it was political, economic, or social the Europeans found ways to have those things benefit the British and very little or not at all to the Indian.

In the 1700s Britain established the British East India Company to create more profitable trade around the world. It became one of the most powerful mercantile organizations by creating and maintaining a monopoly on many exotic goods including cotton, silk, tea, and spices transferred to Britain. As it grew in power the company began to develop its own standing military, which established further control of the region and its peoples. Once Britain had fully taken control they began to implement changes, these changes had both positive and negative

“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.

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

Politically the British benefited more than the Indians. According to Dr. Lalvani the British imperializing India led to the Indians having the world's largest democracy and the British established the framework for India’s justice system, civil service, loyal army and efficient police force. Although, the British led to the largest democracy in India today. According to document 2, when the British imperialized India they had 900 Englishmen employed in the civil offices out of 960, the remaining 60 were occupied by Indians or natives.

Lalvani states that “... both nations benefited from the trade links that were firmly established in the 17th century and continued under the East India Company” (paragraph #10). However, because of the trade links established, cheap English fabric flooded the market, decreasing exports of Indian cloth and leading to loss of work, poverty, starvation, and even death as a result (document #5 & #6). The trade links led to the destabilization of the Indian economy and rendered Indians dependent on the British, losing the self-sufficiency they had before imperialism. In paragraph 17, Lalvani claims “the British also worked to preserve the environment and animals of India”. In reality, the growth of cash crops ruined Indian soil, only allowing them to grow the crops the British wanted.

This lead to the British using the army in wrong ways and the government being mostly white foreigners. The British made the Indian army and military academies to train officers. (According to Dr.Lalvani) However the British ended up using the Indian army against the Indians for example the Amritsar massacre. (Gandhi). The British created a superbly efficient administration over 500 million diverse people. (According to Dr.Lalvani) On the other hand as good as this may be the British government over India consisted of 960 officers, 900 of which were Englishmen. (Document 2). Because of this the Indians felt as if they had no responsibility over their own

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.

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

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.

One question I have on the topic of Britain’s reign over India is why Indians were discriminated against. On page 42, a young British girl says to Vidya at the airport, “Don’t touch me, blackie! Look where you’re going, you crow!” On page 38 Vidya’s father scoffs sarcastically, “Only white people have the brains to be officers. We are too stupid, of course.” Why did Britain hate the citizens of the country they had taken over? Was it to keep them in line, to say if they dare go against them the discrimination would get worse? If the British thought the Indians were so horrible, why did they take over their country, take their resources and take volunteers to fight on their side of the war? It made no sense that Britain would occupy their country

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

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.