Should The Sun Never Set On The British Empire

The British East India Company took over India because of all the resources that they had. when the company made the Indians join a military they rebelled and started firing back at the British and then the company “called” the British government and they came with big guns to take control and regain India for themselves. British imperialism has a negative impact on the politics of india because of the British courts and the government wasn't far toward the indians. 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. British imperialism had a positive impact on the economy of India because the British eliminated highway robberies,

about the many unjustified things the British did and also the “The establishment of an absolute

In the early portion of the twentieth century, there was an extraordinary surge of European empires claiming countries as their own. This outburst of imperialism spanned to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. At the cusp of this competitive era, approximately four-fifths of the earth were under European control. There are several accounts of resistances to European imperialism however, especially in Asia. This paper will explore the resistances made by India and China against European imperialism, compare the similarities of both campaigns, and contrast the techniques used in both accounts.

We have seen through lectures and through this book the dangers of imperialism. The use of indirect leaders leads to very little reprentation in government and therefore not a whole lot of say for those who are being colonized. We see the negative consequences of Imperialism very stated in colonial India.

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.

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.

A question often contemplated, but never concluded: Is the effective rule of an alien power bette that the mismanaged one of your own? This was the case for the people of India during British colonial rule. India was the largest and most significant colony that was controlled at the height of the British Empire. Because of its vast quantities of cotton, tea and indigo, the British East India Company began to take over Indian cities in 1757, essentially establishing a monopoly over trade. When British sepoys rebelled against the East India Company in 1857, both the East India Company and the British military took over the entire country of India. Despite many Indians remaining illiterate, British rule in India was efficient, affluent and contributive.

Dr. Lalvani claims that “Indians success, is largely due to British imperial rule.” The British didn't just establish the framework for the justice system for India but it established the civil service, loyal army and efficient police force (Document

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

While the British Imperial rule established the framework for India's justice system. They also created the Indian army and created military academies to train officers. This lead to the British controlling the Indian government, as well as their army. The British Imperial rule established the framework of indians justice system. However the framework did not include many Indians, 900 british and 60 Indians(Gandhi). (Doc #2)The British

The study of British colonialism is a rather new field with much to discuss and a lot more to debate. The recent recognition of new nation-states that were once under the control of Britain was a growing phenomenon and one that continues to play a large role in today’s global politics. Since the rather recent period of these new nations, new study’s have been done into the history of a) the peoples that inhabited the land before Britain, b) the way Britain occupied and control and land, and now c) post-Britain. This is a growing topic in the historical field because seventy-five years ago there was no thought that Britain would relieve control of India or Nigeria. That is why post-British colonialism is important to today, because it is a

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.

The whole notion behind imperialism, more often than not, is regarded as a negative chapter in history, due to the obvious damaging effects that it had (for the purpose of this inquiry) on India specifically. Regardless of that fact, we need to analyze this era with an

The cultural ties to empire are not so easy to efface as the political ones. This is perhaps one of the most important lessons the world has learned from the mass movement towards independence on the part of European colonies in the past half-century. Even we Americans, more than two hundred years after having rejected the British monarchy and all it stands for, are forever poking our noses in the