How Should The Indian Mutiny B Essay

Also known as India’s First War for Independence, this rebellion was between Indian Sepoys and the British East India Company. Before this mutiny, the British East India Company had total control over Indian, however afterwards, Indian was directly controlled by the British Raj. Because of this the British government had even more control over Indian and her laws, similar to how Britain gained more control of North America after the Seven Years War. One thing that stayed the same before and after the rebellion was the rebel’s cause. Indian citizens began to continue their criticism of the unfair rule of the British, similar to how some American colonists were rebelling against the new, stricter

The Sepoy Rebellion happened due to The British East India Company’s insensitivity to the Indian culture and Britain’s attempt to create a new government. Sita Ram was a sepoy who was loyal to the British but still had his doubts about questionable actions and explains this in one of his memoirs, which states, “Interested parties were quick to point out that the great aim of the English was to turn us all into Christians and they had therefore introduced the cartridge in order to bring this about, since both Muslims and Hindus would be defiled by using it.”(Document C) This piece of evidence clearly explains Sita’s point of view on how the British’s actions led to the sepoy’s distrusting the British. By bringing up the fact that there was no Indian representative in the government the British East India Company Sita conveys why the sepoy were beginning to lose faith in British rule. Their neglect to allow an Indian representative was a mistake in the long run. Another person who believes that Britain’s past actions caused suspicion with Indian citizens. Sayyid Ahmed Khan was Muslim noble and scholar who worked as a jurist for the British East India

Third section including how the colonist caused innocent people to die and how they people in jail for defending themselves from the colonist. Fourth section will talk about how the colonist started the war. Last section will conclude with conclusion with the Boston Massacre, giving a brief summary of the topics main points, restating thesis and a call to action. This paper will also include on the last page a works cited.

As India’s modernization developed, the entire civilization of India improved remarkably. The country’s improvement of civilization is exemplified through it’s establishment of schools and law. Western education was introduced by Britain and laws were well made with courts that enforce them. (Doc 3). One should take into account the speaker of this document because Romesh Dutt is an Indian like any other, yet he praises the British for what they have done to contribute to the development of India. In addition to these establishments is Britain bringing finer ideals of humanity to India. Infanticide, the killing of female babies, was brought to a halt as well as participation in the slave trade (Doc 5). Without the interference of Britain, these inhumane actions would be prevalent throughout India and the country would suffer from a bad reputation. These

Although the rebellion and revolts seemed to grow rather quickly, a series of events simply built up in such a way which makes the Massacre considerably ‘a wimpy way to rebel.’ First, nearly 5 years before this gruesome killing, Great Britain enforced the Townshend Act upon the colonists, forcing the payment and collection of taxes. Consequently, no person wanted to pay this imposed charge to a country which simply causes conflict. Instead, people began to revolt, rebel, and riot against these demands. In return, Great Britain passed the Quartering Act to suffice for the shelter of troops whom of which were placed in towns to act as a means of structure regarding control over the people. Beginning in 1765, the colonists were expected to provide shelter and food for soldiers at their own expense. In addition to the shipment of troops in order to control the people, many British

Proclamation of 1763 was the Indians and the british attempting to separate from each other.

However, the reality was quite the opposite. In July 1767, Charles Townshend, head of the British Treasury, proposed what would be known as the Townshend Acts. These acts raised revenue by placing a tax on glass, paints, led and tea. The acts also suspended the New York Assembly until it agreed to cooperate with the Quartering Act. The colonists were quick to respond to these Townshend duties by, once again, commencing to boycott British goods and trigger riots. On March 5, 1770, an incident known as the Boston Massacre occurred when British soldiers fired into a crowd of Boston rebels, killing five people. On the day of the Boston Massacre, Parliament repealed numerous terms of the Townshend Acts, but left a tax on tea in place so as not to be perceived as relinquishing control. Another significant conflict between the British and colonists occurred on June 9, 1772. This event, known as the Gaspee Incident, transpired when a British naval ship, called the Gaspee, was burned by colonists from Rhode Island while on a mission to intercept smugglers. This incident was key in preparing the colonists for a revolution. In 1773, the East India Company, which was a close ally of England, faced economic downfall. In response to this, Parliament passed the Tea Act, which was designed to aid the East India Company. This act essentially

American colonists were justified in war execution and division of Britain. Britain’s impositions of taxes, alongside tyrannic enforcements resulted in colonial resistance. This concept enhanced British violence, for instance, the Boston Massacre, in which British soldiers killed five men. These events were to lead to the First and Second Continental Congress, in which Americans were to declare their grievances. Although, considering the circumstances under Parliament, the struggles continued.

2. Why did violence break out between the colonists and British troops? Was this justified?

Crispus Attucks, a runaway slave was the leader of the attack. The crowd tossed various items towards the sentry and challenged the soldiers to fire their weapons. Private White Hugh, a soldier, warned Captain Thomas Preston of the riot, who was the officer of the watch. Preston proclaimed that he posted six privates of the 29th Regiment and an officer to aid White. These Soldiers included: Corporal William Wemms, Hugh Montgomery, John Carroll, William McCauley, William Warren, and Matthew Kilroy. When the soldiers went to the customhouse, they spread themselves in formation. The crowd consistently taunted them and threw snowballs. When something hit Private Montgomery he told the troops to fire. Although the crowd left the customhouse, they continued to rise in the streets. [Independence Hall

Although the greased cartridges were the trigger of the Sepoy Rebellion, the underlying cause was the realization that the Indians had lost religious control. Up until the Sepoy Rebellion, the British were in control many different sides of India, but what kept the Sepoys loyal was the fact that they felt the British weren’t encroaching upon their religion and culture. The first major violation of Indian culture, according to Historian Joseph Coohill, was the seizure of Oudh, “Oudh was such a rich and historic part of India that this seizure was seen as a cultural insult” (Doc E). The reason that this source is credible is that Joseph Coohill is American and has no relation the either party involved. Sita Ram, who was even loyal to the British, agreed with Mr. Cohill in his memoirs, “the

The Rebellion was led by Louis Joseph Papineau and the Patriotes. He published the Ninety-Two Resolutions which were a list of demands for political reforms and improvements. They wanted a responsible government, but it was rejected in London then was followed by an economic depression of French Canadian farmers in the 1830’s. In the rebellion

In the 1787 and the violence has just ended with the rebels’ defeat by state

The acts that were placed upon the colonist did anger the colonists. I believe the colonist would of been obedient to Britain if the Great Awakening had not of happen. The Great Awakening opened the colonist’s eyes to a whole new world. Once the colonists had a sense of independent choice they did not want go back. When the acts were placed upon the colonists they had a hint of rebellion already in them because of the Great Awakening. The colonists wanted to break free of Britain and create their own independent choice. Good response Tanner.

I agree with colonist and their desires for freedom. It was a long battle against British and their laws. I would have fought with the rebellions and colonist because it's hard to live with a set of laws that prohibits you from having freedom right. I think one of the main reasons why colonist fought was because of the high taxation. I know it says that in 1765 the Parliament passed The Stamp Act one of many other acts that were meant to raise taxes on the colonist. Colonist were not happy about all this acts which it cause a big problem between British and people in the United States. People didn't want to pay for this new acts which made the British to send troops to enforce this new laws on March 18,1766. it's a big deal when someone