Sepobritish Imperialism In India

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

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

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

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.

They changed India using their enterprise, capital, and intelligence. They taught the people how to communicate which helped them tremendously with trading and social contact. Creating the telegraph was the main way communication was spread. This was a device that was used to transmit messages to different location along a wire. They also developed new modes of transportation like bridges, railways, and paved roads.

The East India Company effectively ruled India from 1757 to 1857, where their rise to power came to an end after the start of the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (Lawson, 35). The direct reason for the rebellion still remains unclear. It was either a planned war of independence against the British power, an uncoordinated uprising of soldiers who felt a threat to their religion and traditional practices, or simply a mutiny by soldiers who wanted increased pay and greater career opportunities (Iyer, 4). The British Crown signed the Government of India Act 1858, which liquidated the East India Company, relinquishing all of its assets to Britain, including the control of the territories seized in India. This was the beginning of the British rule over India, the British Raj, which established India as a British colony commonly referred to as British India.

The Indians were starting to feel as if their country wasn't theirs anymore. Poor farmers and other hard-working would work all day long just for the british who were forcing them to do so.Whenever someone would raise their voice they would end up in jail. Indians would start to wonder why they were so civilized by another nation. For some time the only power british had to keep the Indians quite was to start putting people in jail.some would be afraid of that and some would not even speak, But Gandhi wasn't one of them, he didn't want to stay quiet and watch them rule India.One of the examples was when Gandhi wanted to repeal the taxes,the salt march in particular, he was a very brave to speak up but once again he was sent to jail. Indians didn't think it was such a great Idea to send someone to jail without any official court orders. They would rally outside jails and finally the British signed an agreement to repeal some taxes. The British would have a sudden fear that if they still rallied outside the jail they would probably have to do even more of repealing taxes. But I am pretty sure it wasn't the last time Gandhi was sent to

One fault for the British military was to employ Sepoy’s into their military system. They were a subgroup of the British military, and they were essentially seen as peasants in the eyes of the Empire. The Sepoy’s had guns now, and the Indians had a way to fight back. In 1857, the Mogul emperor attempted to take control of India once again. The Indians unfortunately lost the “Sepoy Rebellion of 1857.”

The British were able to secure their colonial rule in India by creating certain regulations and defining racial lines. The British used historical Hindu and Muslim rule to govern the two religious groups. This made the British seem like they were friends to the Indians, while really creating deeper divisions in Indian society. Additionally, they created a sense of British superiority to the Indians and a belief that the Indians needed to be civilized. When the Indians did revolt, this only allowed the British to justify their

The reason for British rule over India and China was because they wanted greater access to raw

India fought relentlessly against the British for independence in the late 19th and early and mid 20th century using peaceful methods such as civil disobedience, a way of rebelling the government through protest and not fighting. India’s fight for independence using non violent strategies against the british colonial power through philosophical ideas, civil disobedience, and threatening the Brit’s economic situation in India.

On August 15, 1947, India gained it’s independence from the British rule and became its own nation. Several different factors played into the independence from british rule. But the Indian independence movement was much different than normal revolutions that have happened in history, the independence became one of the only successful non-violent revolutions in the history of the world. Although their independence was non-violent in the end, it was not always that way. In the 1800s multiple revolutionaries tried to revolt against the British using violent tactics but in the end they always failed

India gain their independence. Mahatma used nonviolent civil disobedience during a campaign in 1930 and 1931 to pave the way for Indian independence. This made British open their eyes and try to give the Indians what they want so they could

India were under British rule in 89 years. The Indians were treated like animals, had to pay extremely high taxes and lost in some cases, everything they owned. Mahatma Gandhi is known for his non-violence campaign to release India from the

Delving directly into the stratagem of Gandhiji and his novel methods will always lead to a misconstrued discourse because it will lack the actual political , social and economic canvas of the then India which was shaped by the historical propositions since the dawn of the colonial. Being a semi- democratic colony , India was very unique on the picturesque of colonialism. Such