How Far Do These Sources Suggest That B
How far do these sources suggest that British rule was accepted in India at the beginning of the twentieth century?
To a certain extent sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that the British rule was accepted in India. Source A shows efforts were made to improve the relationship between India and Britain but ultimately it implies that the viceroy should try not ‘to trample on the people’. Source 2, similar to source 1 implies that India had no freedom and India was in no ‘position to gain our independence’. Source 3 however, is an image displaying the Indian people appreciating their princes in a coronation. The divide between Britain and India is very dominant despite the evidence of source 3.
The British rule was clearly not accepted in India because of the noticeable divide in India. Source 1 is a letter from Queen Victoria complaining about the viceroy and questions whether he is a successful viceroy. The viceroy, Curzon, never showed any interest in India but he still decides to be the viceroy of India. The source says that he ‘tramples’ on the Indian people. India wouldn’t be happy about the fact that he is English but he is also a very poor viceroy. This shows that he has no support of the Indian people which he desperately needs for him to be successful. Source 1 is also written by the Queen which shows that Curzon obviously isn’t doing a good job as viceroy if the Queen is getting involved. It was also a private letter so the source is likely going to be a strong and valuable source because at the time it wasn’t published. Source 2 is a letter to a Kesari newspaper talking about India’s freedom. In terms of power, India had no freedom under the British rule. India was dominated by Britain and didn’t have any influence in India. The source has evidence that India believed that their ‘condition wouldn’t be any better by the exchange of the British rule’. Separatism is very much alive in India and there is a lack of trust between the two nations. Just like in source 3,
To a certain extent sources 1, 2 and 3 suggest that the British rule was accepted in India. Source A shows efforts were made to improve the relationship between India and Britain but ultimately it implies that the viceroy should try not ‘to trample on the people’. Source 2, similar to source 1 implies that India had no freedom and India was in no ‘position to gain our independence’. Source 3 however, is an image displaying the Indian people appreciating their princes in a coronation. The divide between Britain and India is very dominant despite the evidence of source 3.
The British rule was clearly not accepted in India because of the noticeable divide in India. Source 1 is a letter from Queen Victoria complaining about the viceroy and questions whether he is a successful viceroy. The viceroy, Curzon, never showed any interest in India but he still decides to be the viceroy of India. The source says that he ‘tramples’ on the Indian people. India wouldn’t be happy about the fact that he is English but he is also a very poor viceroy. This shows that he has no support of the Indian people which he desperately needs for him to be successful. Source 1 is also written by the Queen which shows that Curzon obviously isn’t doing a good job as viceroy if the Queen is getting involved. It was also a private letter so the source is likely going to be a strong and valuable source because at the time it wasn’t published. Source 2 is a letter to a Kesari newspaper talking about India’s freedom. In terms of power, India had no freedom under the British rule. India was dominated by Britain and didn’t have any influence in India. The source has evidence that India believed that their ‘condition wouldn’t be any better by the exchange of the British rule’. Separatism is very much alive in India and there is a lack of trust between the two nations. Just like in source 3,