Week Two: The Final Years of the British Raj
After doing the readings for this week I decided it may be beneficial to watch a documentary on either India now or before independence. I did some research and “The Flame Burns Bright” is considered a good documentary depicting India before it gained independence. I decided to watch the documentary to gain some further knowledge on India before independence.
Documentary Notes:
Gandhi was an architect of Indian independence would deliver the people from British control India wanted a cultural history of their own
India determination to due without the British and the British treated Indian nationalism with a firm hand (1921) (even though the British had stated that they would
…show more content…
Do the other minority ethnic or religious groups living in India see themselves as a distinctive and separate group that would rather form their own nation? Furthermore, I am interested in learning more about how India is able to function despite having such a diverse ethnic and religious make up. The British encouraged a divide between Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus. The British needed these two religious groups to be divided in order to keep their control. They wanted citizens to identify themselves through their religion, not as Indians. By keeping India divided, Britain would be able to remain in control. If Britain had encouraged cohesion and unity, would this have helped bridge the gap between these two religious groups? For example, the Great Calcutta Killings of 1946, could this event been avoided? The Great Calcutta Killings remind me of what happened in Rwanda in 1994. A conflict in which people who were once neighbours were killing each other for belonging to a different religious or ethnic group. Both situations resulted in a bloody massacre of innocent people and the complete disregard of human life. In both cases people associated their identity with religion or ethnicity, instead of building a communal national identity. The horrors of the Great Calcutta Killings were gruesome and unsettling to hear about. The atrocities that occurred were horrible and it was hard
“India has never been a symbol of unity of Hindu-Muslim civilization. It is not possible for the British Government to create homogeneity between Hindu and Muslim culture and civilization as the two systems are distinctively opposed to each other. There is no way other than the partition of India”
Disputes over land seem to be a catalyst for almost every hostility and war since the dawn of time. The addition of politics and religion into the matter only serves to aggravate an already tense situation. Kashmir knows this all too well. The conflict between Hindus and Muslims seems to be an ever reoccurring battle. This is also evidenced in population battles. Hindus make up the social majority of the population of India by almost eighty percent. Feelings of tension and uneasiness are a natural reaction to being dominated by a majority and are a problem unto itself.
“Englishmen.. have given the people of India the greatest human blessing - peace.” (Dutt). Merely coming to India in the 1600s to trade, the British East India Company established trading outposts. After ridding of French influence in India during the Seven Years’ War and having Indians mutiny against British rule, Britain gained full control of India. India has been under the imperialist control of the British until their independence in 1947. British imperialism caused some negative effects on India through poverty and persecution, but retained more of a positive impact due to its massive improvements in the modernization of India and the overall improvement of Indian civilization.
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
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
(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
Imperialism is the domination of one country of the political, economic, or cultural life of another country. Imperialism is more often than not fueled by two major schools of thought known as nationalism and Social Darwinism. Nationalism is a feeling of pride and devotion to one’s country. This can drive a person to think that their country is the most powerful, and in essence drives that person mad with power and a hunger to conquer, which not ironically is exactly what many countries did. Social Darwinism is the very idea that a more powerful country conquer the smaller countries. “Survival of the fittest,” as the well renowned Charles Darwin used to say. Imperialism is also sometimes sparked by military motives, such as when USA set up
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.
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.
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