Partition Of Indi India

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.

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,

In 1939 World War II broke out in Europe. Britain proclaimed India’s involvement in the war without consulting the Indian people. This led to increased protest and volatility. In 1942 India established a national army and proposed the Quit India Movement. This movement promised to lend Indian military support to Britain in return for complete independence. If they refused this treaty the Indian people promised civil disobedience. In 1947 India was granted its independence and became self governing (Luscombe, 2012). On January 26, 1950 the Republic of India was proclaimed and it drafted a constitution. The first democratic elections were held in 1952. However the Hindus and Muslims were not united and colonial India was divided into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India (History, 2010).

The Indian resistance against the British empire is one example of opposition against imperialism. Until 1858, India was controlled by the British East India Company. Thereafter, the crown rule replaced the company rule until 1947. “The slow expansion of the Indian role in public affairs would not have occurred without mounting political pressure from Indian society” (Findley 188). The people of India had tried to cause a reform through a political channel, evident through the slow yet steady participation in political affairs from 1858-1947. In this resistance,

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

When the British assumed control they unified India. The British however, made an unfair government that negatively impacting the politics of India. The government the British had created, gave the Indians little to no say in the decisions being made and mostly only benefit the British. The transition from colonial rule to independence also caused many deaths. Lalvani claims the British administration was “superbly efficient” (Lalvani).

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

British Imperialism had a negative impact on the politics of India because the British took away control of the country for their benefit and enforced laws that discriminated against Indians. Lavani claims the British “established the framework for India’s justice system, civil service, loyal army, and efficient police force.” However, this framework was not intended for the Indians, but for the British. For example, 94% of government positions were held by Englishman (Doc. #2). These people had “no permanent interest in their well-being” and returned to England after “forty-five or fifty-five years of age with large pensions (Doc. #2).” This shows the British government used India as a source of wealth and controlled the people without

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

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.

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.

Indians were becoming politically active in the late 1800s. During this period, they founded institutions that would help end colonial rule. In 1885, Indian modernists formed the Indian National Congress to reform Hindu and Muslim practices that did not match up to their liberal ideals and to change British Indian policies that were opposed to democratic ideals. However, many internal issues within the Indian culture were obstacles to independence. Most notably are the differences in language groups. Despite these problems, a nationalist movement took root within the country that ultimately led to the creation of India and Pakistan in 1947. There were three principles to this movement that helped the movement succeed.

This essay will focus on the decolonisation of India by the British Empire and the problems they encountered. It will also aim to bring recognition to the struggle decolonisation brought upon the world after World War II. Pierce states that “after the War concluded, a worldwide process of decolonisation commenced in which Britain granted independence to all of its major colonies, beginning notably in India” (Pierce, 2009). India had struggled with uprisings and conflicts for the many years of British occupation but when Gandhi began sharing his social efforts; the perceptions of colonialism began to change leading to the collapse of the British colonial Empire. Gandhi began changing the lives of regular Indian’s with his popular visions, he also advocated for the people of India in a non-violent

The Partition of India in August, 1947 was a significant event in history that accounted for the separation of one of the world’s oldest civilization into two, independent nations – Pakistan and India. Like many other wars in history, The Partition of India was instigated by religious, political and social conflict. This resulted in violence, discrimination and the largest human displacement in contemporary history. While the Partition was well-studied, much of our understanding was focused on the political side of history, not the human side of it. This was why oral history played an important role in manifesting the complexity of a historical event. Our focus here is Maya Rani’s testimony from Butalia’s book, The Other Side of Silence:

Before the Partition of India, in 1947, India was considered a country with a reasonably peaceful history. However, during and after the Partition, sexual violence, both towards men and women, escalated, resulting in the rape and abduction of over 80,000 women. Cracking India, by Bapsi Sidhwa, tells a story that highlights these violent acts by both Muslims and Hindus, through the eyes of a disabled young Parsi girl named Lenny, who witnesses first hand the violence of Partition when she mistakenly participates in the abduction of her ayah, Shanta. Throughout Cracking India, Lenny observes as the religions involved in Partition become increasingly violent towards both men and women, within their own religions and against others.