Imperialism In India

This was significant because the British civilized the barbariceness of the robberies,killings and suicides. Usually Imperium is seen as a bad thing with it being social and changing the culture of the place, but what the British did was making india a safer more civilized place. The British also brought English to

When the Europeans came to India one of the things that they did in India was establish a government that India did not have (lavani). Although the government was efficient the government was used to control the Indians (Doc 2). WIth that government also came a

However India did get some things out of its own conquest. The British were fairly gentlemanly in their actions in India. The terrible act of Siraj-ud-Dowla, imprisoning 146 Britons in the Black Hole of Calcutta, showed in some ways the psyche of some of the rulers of India and the British civilising influence must have had some effect on most Indians quality of life, for the better. I do not feel however, that the British went to India in order to civilise the culture, I do not believe that their motives were that selfless, the civilising influence seems to have simply been a by-product of the fact that the Britains came.

It became evident that the British could maintain the empire only at enormous cost. At the end of the Second World War, they saw the writing on the wall, and initiated a number of constitutional moves to effect the transfer of power to the sovereign State of India. For the first and perhaps the only time in history, the power of a mighty global empire 'on which the sun never set', had been challenged and overcome by the moral might of a people armed only with ideals and courage.

In 1757, Great Britain extended its empire into India. This occupation would not fully end until 1947. In the time between, there were many movements by the Indian people to gain independence from the British. The movement that finally succeeded in winning India’s independence was led by one of the most influential figures of the 20th century, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi’s methods for fighting against the occupation of the British were very different from those of any of the freedom movements before. And that was why it worked. Gandhi did not agree with the general reasoning of the time: that conflicts could be solved through negotiation and forceful resistance.1 Rather, his faith led him to go

Lalvani states that Britain brought the english language to India. Britain spread it to people who had 700 different languages (Lalvani). This spread allowed the people to use English to communicate with each other, before this spread of language an Indian from the west could not communicate with an Indian from the east because they would not have a common language. Lalvani also states that the British enacted social reforms helping some parts of India with old tradition that was not right. The British came to India and ended highway robbery, ended widow suicide, and ended female infanticide (Doc 18). The highway robbery was something that would happen when you traveled, it was while you were traveling that you would be jumped and beaten or killed while they stole all your valuables and it was stopped. Widow suicide was when a womans husband died she was expected to jump on the fire that was cremating him and die with him and this was also stopped by the British. Female infanticide was also ended by the british. Female infanticide was the act of killing a infant that was female because it was a curse to have a female child. The British ended this by telling them that it is wrong to kill and infant no matter the gender putting a stop to female infanticide. Unintentionally doing good things for the social impact in

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.

They controlled 900/960 governors of the police offices. They still got to use the ships and the railroads to transport goods (Lalvani). Giving them no say and created dependency, and they had no control over their taxations (Doc.#2). Even tho the British practically ruined and killed tons of people because of starvation & changing the laws the indians practically still have some perks left to use like the ships but they couldn’t eat or sell food to get money to food really affected them.

British imperialism did not benefit the Indians politically because the British maintained almost a complete control of the government and also controlling the Indians lives, a way they did that was by having the police kill innocent people. Their police killed 400 people at Amritsar because they were protesting (Gandhi). Yes, the British might of had a well established efficient government in their eyes because they had everything under control but, out of the 960 people who ran their government only 60 of them were Indian and the other 900 were British (Doc 2). That matters

Where would India be if the British did not settle in India? India was controlled by the Mughal Empire in the early 1700’s. When the Mughal Empire collapsed the British east India company come into India. The British took control over India in 1857. The British saw India as the brightest “jewel in the crown” because India had what the British wanted, and that was all of India's natural resources. The British opened up many windows for India to grow in. The British also opened up more jobs, and even raised pay, you may even say the British and India become friends. Although the British robed India of their resources , they also killed millions of Indians before there was peace. The British also used India to make money.

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.

In 1885, nationalist leaders organized the Indian National Congress who called for greater democracy which they felt would bring more power to themselves. Other Indian nationalists, took a more radical, anti-British stand. I believe this is positive because I feel that the first instance of British resistance was the first step towards independence. Negative effects of the imperialistic rule in India were that there was a rapid population growth , hence, there was a strain on the food supply, especially since farmland was turned into cash crops instead of food. They cleared new farmlands which led to massive deforestation and other environmental destruction. Also, in the late 1800s terrible famines swept India. The railroads could not carry food to the suffering areas, but overall, millions of Indian peasants sank deeply into poverty.

The British imperialized India to impose their language and culture, and exploit India’s precious resources. The British wanted to take India and combine the two countries, as this would result in a much larger and stronger Britain. They chose India as they knew the country was in a weak state, improving the British’s chances to regulate them. However, in the process to this domination, Britain interfered India in various ways. Britain disrupted India’s economy, regulated trade, caused a famine, took loads of money in goods, controlled India’s government, and caused mass amounts of racism within the country. India’s potential in trade and market caught the eye of the British whose interest was rapidly growing in their economy. Initially, the

India was colonized by British for about two hundred years, and as a result most of India is under the influence of British culture “Colonialism hardly ever exploits the whole of a country. It contents itself with bringing to light the natural resources,