The Economic And Social Structures Of India & Pakistan Since The Moghuls

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,

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

(Document 5) This shows that even though Britain gave education to Indians they only gave it to who could afford it and hardly anyone could. Lalvani claims that over the 200 year span of British imperialism, India’s religions felt safer and less discriminated against. ( According to Dr.Lalvani) Although the British thought this was true it actually was not. Christians were mocking and discriminating against Muslims and Hindus. (Gandhi) Similarly Hinduism believes in nonviolence so when the protest at Amritsar took place the Indians were brutally slaughtered while being unarmed. (Gandhi) Because of their non-violence beliefs the Hindus had no defense and were killed by what they thought was their

Though it is a fact that the British in India administered an efficient government and civil services, these actions ultimately hurt the Indians because of the British dominated parliament and the administration of oppressive laws. Dr. Lalvani claims that while in power, the British governed 500 million people of diverse religions in a “superbly efficient” manor. The reason that British India was efficient was because the British held complete control. The Indian government contained only 6% of native Indian officials, while the overwhelming majority were British foreigners (Doc #2). This lead to laws that hurt the Indians and helped the British such as laws like the Salt Act that devastated Indian taxes and revenue (Doc #2). This is significant because it does not matter if the British government was effective if it oppressed the Indian majority with little representation and unfair laws.

From: Romesh Dutt, The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule Englishmen…have given the people of India the greatest human blessing – peace. They have introduced Western education. This has brought an ancient and civilized nation in touch with modern thought, modern sciences and modern life. They have built an administration that is strong and efficient. They have framed wise laws and have established courts of justice.

Many people believe that in the 1940’s most of India’s problems involving independence was to do with divisions within India rather than British imperialism. In this essay I will be looking at both points of view and finally giving my opinion. I will be using three sources also to help me show both sides of the story. I will also be using my further knowledge to add a wider range of knowledge.

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.

Historically, India was under British rule until 1950. Many people in India felt that during British rule they were powerless (Beteille, 2010). All of the problems in the country were blamed on this helplessness (Beteille, 2010). When India became independent and developed its own constitution, a large amount of emphasis was placed on the role of government in solving social problems (Beteille, 2010). During British rule, many customs and practices in India were based on the Hindu religion (Beteille, 2010). The British left those in place, neither making them unlawful nor supporting them (Beteille, 2010). When the new government was established, the caste system that had so sharply defined India was declared unlawful (Beteille, 2010). While this was a step in the

While the British assumed control over India, they created the advanced infrastructure of its newly founded political system and military with the sole purpose to restricted the native population. According to Lalvani, all of India’s standards for its justice system, civil service, army and police force were all set by the British imperialist. Although the framework was set to have an efficient way of governing the native land and population, it did not include Indians and instead served the needs of englishmen. Out of 960 civil offices, 900 positions were occupied by englishmen and only the remaining 60 were filled by natives (Doc.2.) Ultimately, through the creation of heavy taxation and freedom restricting laws that only affected the Indian

The structures of colonial social formations took a different shape, Using India as a classic example. The resulting structure was neither the unchanged pre-colonial system nor was it identical with that of conventional capitalism. It is properly designated as, I have suggested, a colonial mode of production.

The British practically set up the poverty for Indian. In addition to this, Lalvani claims the British preserved the environment. In document 7 it shows the way the British “preserved the environment” made it incapable for Indians to grow crops. The cutting down of forest for wood created a hotter

Peaceful, powerful, and stable are all words one could use to describe India’s economy before the British. In fact, The economy of India’s was the second most developed in the world at the time as it dominated the world’s trade by its exports including textiles and agricultural

What is the relation between colonial experience and economic development? Answer by way of discussing colonialism, modernisation and economic development.

It is very much clear that a general model of colonialism and underdevelopment cannot explain the variations in India’s growth trend during the colonial period from 1863 to 1947. However, there are three structural features that define the entire colonial period. Structural features which include the importance of natural resources and labour to economics growth and welfare.Land intensive agriculture, Labour-intensive handicrafts, and modern industry in natural resources, were the main livelihoods throughout this period and beyond. Global features which saw a more open Indian economy and the fact that India took part in the first globalisation of the 19th century, which saw a rapid integration of world economy in terms of commodity trade, capital flows, and labour migration. Due to the opening of Suez canal in 1867 India also witnessed the revolution in transport and communication, Railways and telegraph which were introduced in this phase. There were Colonial features suggesting India was a colony is evident from the large remittances that government of India paid to the government in Britain. Thus, development in India was not resultant of a single factor but can be summed as the culmination of various factors which shaped, in mutual interaction, the economic growth in the region.

Aashima Chargotra1, Nitin Chandel2, Ph.D. Research Scholar, Department of History, University of Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India. Nitinchandel19@gmail.com. Cellular: 9797693019