The British took all political power from the Indian government. For example of the 960 civil offices that controlled the civil administration of India, 900 were ran by British Men and the other 60 offices were ran by the natives of India (Doc. 2). Also the Indians had no power to change taxation (Doc. 2). In document 1 it says “For a hundred years you have done everything for us. You have given us no responsibility for our own government.”…
Imagine living in India when the British took full control, and then being forced to change your day to day life. The british had an economic interest in India which started during the 1600’s. During the Industrial Revolution, India was considered a prized possession by the British because they supplied raw materials to the factories for production. Eventually, the British took full control of India, and made some major changes that significantly impacted India. Although the British had a negative economic impact on India, they had a positive impact on both the political and social aspects of India. The British were able to set a foundation for India, and create a justice system while containing violence, even though they had to take away some Indian rights to do so.…
To begin with, British imperialism helped to revise the legal system in India. Several things needed to be changed therefore many reforms began to occur. The legal system changed to promote justice towards all Indians no matter their classes. They worked to put an end to the caste system and slavery once and for all. Much of the population was Hindu and followed the Hindu customs and traditions even those that were hurtful or not beneficial to society or the country of India. For example one of the Hindu customs referred to as “Sati” is a belief that a widow must join her husband in death therefore she is required to throw herself unto his funeral…
One view presented by the sources is that Indians did not like the British rule. The theme of hostility is presented in Source 11, where Gandhi writes in 1920 that the British are “evilly manned”, using strong words such as “dishonest” and “unscrupulous”, suggesting strong feelings of hostility towards British rule, as Gandhi feels as though the British are almost cheating the Indian people “with no regard to the wishes of the Indian people”, meaning the British are doing what they want without consulting the people they are ruling over. This source shows that the hostility felt by Indians was in fact widespread because it is written by Gandhi, a man who represented and was supported by a variety of people from all classes. This theme of hostility towards British is corroborated in Source 10 where the British are described as “irresponsible” and, like in Source 11, the Indians feel their “rights of human beings are being denied”, showing that the Indians again felt that the British were doing as they pleased without Indian voices being heard. However, as the source is written by Motilal Nehru, leader of the INC, it is difficult to say from this source that hostility was in fact widespread – Nehru only represents the INC which has the high caste community as a significant majority, and as it is written in 1919, we cannot be sure if the hostility was long-lasting as it is the same year as the massacre itself.…
The British East India company held India in its grasp until the Sepoy Rebellion in 1857 happened. Because of the rebellion England decided to take more control over the colony by having the actual government take root and complete control in 1857. With Britain having taken over India they turned it into a very efficient colony and maximizing its potential, while also putting controlling and racist laws to Indians and restricting them in most ways, by forcing them to farm non food crops, destroying whole industries and unneeded deaths from famines, to a massacre of peaceful protesters.…
In the past, the expression of all of the Indian’s resistance was seen as rebellious and deemed as imprudent choices. Now after full consideration, one can see that that was their only way out, and how anything other than rebellious acts would have just lead to greater and greater events of violence inflicted upon them. Therefore, the conclusions behind Indian’s reasoning’s have changed over time to the point where now it is understandable why they reacted and tried to put a stop to the abuse before it got…
In the 1800's, Britain's rule over the Indian people was oppressive. Several attempts were made to influence and alter the Indian culture including forcing English to be taught as a primary language along with creating laws that banned specific muslim practices such as sati, which allowed a widow to be burned to death on the funeral pyre of her dead husband. As they continued to change their culture, movements such at the rebellion of 1857 fought to object to these new rules. These were all violent protests often created by military personnel who in many cases were the main participants in these movements. These protests resulted in thousands of dead and injured people and the impact of the movement was minimal with barely any change.…
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,…
3. By the 1830s, the British government had taken over control of the East India Company. Under British rule, native customs such as sati, the ritual suicide of a wife after her husband’s death, were banned. The British built schools and railroads, and missionaries spread Christianity.…
There is a big difference of the definition between the civilian and military meaning of accountability. The definition of accountability in the military is the obligation imposed by law or lawful order or regulation of an officer or other person for keeping accurate record of property, documents, or funds. The person having this obligation may or may not have actual possession of the property, documents, or funds. Accountability is concerned primarily with records, while responsibility is concerned primarily with custody, care, and safekeeping. Making sure that everyone has what they need and what they are supposed to have is accountability.…
At first, the power that Britain had over India was that of an indirect rule, where they elected a local official who promised to stay loyal to Britain. In addition, the British East India Company, those with the rule of India at the time, established a military regime called the Sepoys who were loyal to the British and helped keep the Indian people in line. However, things could not always stay like this, especially when the people meant to stay loyal to Britain the most rebelled against them. The Sepoy Rebellion began because of the British using pig and cow fat on the ammunition cartilages, which are both animals that are forbidden to be consumed in the Muslim and Hindu faith. The Sepoys, who were expected to ripe off the ammunition paper before loading their guns saw this as a clear form of disrespect towards their religious beliefs. Although the rebellion led to many deaths on both parts of the battle, the Indians turned out losing when the British managed to suppress the rebellion. Since the British were fed up with the violence and disobedience in their empire the British East India Company lost all political control of the nation, the original empires, like the Mughal, were dissolved of all political power and the local officials who had been put into power were now exchanged for native British men. This all…
The Opium War, the Taiping Rebellion, and the Indian Rebellion all had many issues with government, society, economy, and the citizens. Also, all three had leaders that wanted a change. The three wars and rebellions had a very large amount of deaths, damage to citizens, lack of money, and a forever memory of these horrible events. Leaders like Lin Zexu, Hong Xiuquan, and Guofan all demanded a change, whether it failed or not.…
Initially the Indian people accepted the British rule because of the benefits. The British had the…
The commencement of this rebellion started during the British Imperialistic take over in India. After acquiring sixty-six percent of the Indian land, they started dominating the Indian way of life, affecting their culture, education, religion, technology, etc. This created a lot of tension between the two nations. What set the Indians off to finally start the revolt? Thenagain.info states that “The "spark" that came to begin this period of revolts was the introduction of the new, more accurate breech-loading Enfield rifle. The loading of these rifles entailed the biting of a greased cartridge, which the Sepoys feared was made with either cow or pig fat.” The Hindu Sepoys saw this as an attempt to break their caste as a preliminary to making them all Christians” The Indians saw this as an insult and felt absolutely disgusted as eating beef, pork, cows, and other meats are considered haram- meaning forbidden or displeasing God. This was the biggest of the various incidents that occurred therefore making it the catalyst for the revolt.…
14 dead, 21 wounded in San Bernardino. 9 dead in Charleston, S.C. 12 killed, 3 injured in Washington, D.C. 27 killed, one injured at Sandy Hook Elementary. These are just a few examples of tragic mass shootings that have plagued the United States in recent years. But Why? Is it because the gun Laws in this country are too lax? And Guns are just too accessible? I say No, there is greater issue at hand than America’s gun laws thus, any amount gun control legislation will not stop the gun violence and we must vote against it. Too often gun control proposed as thee solution to stop all the tragic mass shootings. I disagree, infringing on the right of Americans to bear arms is not the answer, Keeping guns out of good law abiding people is not going to stop all the violence, I believe that just the opposite is true. Some may object saying, “America has more guns per capita and more gun violence than other nation, so if we decrease the number of arm citizens would also decrease the number of deaths caused by gun violence and make our country safer.” However this objections and others just like it are just not necessarily true.…