The partitions within India of the various parties made coming to an agreement on independence even more difficult as the Indians, (consisting of predominately the Indian national congress and the Muslim League) could not come to an agreement within the country as to who would be in charge. British Imperialism held no strength next to the “fight” going on amongst the various Indian divisions. However the British did see this as a point where they could strengthen their hold on India by arguing that if they could not settle things amongst themselves how could they possibly think to run the country without difficulties. Sources 15 and 17 support the statement, both arguing that the Muslim community would have to be taken into account for true Independence to be achieved. However source 16 states that the British themselves were reluctant to grant India independence.
This religious schism meant that the Muslims were often much more willing to ally against one another then with each other; for example by 1098 the Crusaders held an alliance with Egypt against the Turks. It also meant that Islam had no counter against the notion of ‘crusade’, a jihad was impossible with such disunity. When we combine their effect in the Crusader states in the future such as in 1187 we find this significant. This disunity was not helped by the power vacuum at the time, 1054 was often described by historians “as the year of deaths of sultans and caliphs”, such was the disunity that in
Because the British government was not fulfilling Jefferson’s previously mentioned definition of a government’s duties; they were forced to take the very necessary step of removing themselves from the King’s rule and ruling themselves. In what has become one of the most identifiable phrases in political theory, Jefferson declares certain truths to be “self-evident”. These truths that all men are created equal and that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights became increasingly integral to the cause championed by Jefferson and the other creators of the
The first one is that our rights are not well enough protected. If we had a written constitution with a proper Bill of Rights, as they have in America, we would feel safer and more sure that we would be protected from governments that wish to take too much power. We have lost many of our rights in the UK and this is because we do not have a written Bill of Rights and because government and Parliament have too much uncontrolled power. Another argument is that the people of the UK would feel more patriotic and identify more with politics if there was a written and codified constitution as they have in the USA. Every American citizen knows about their constitution and they are proud of it.
Collective security had a better response towards aggression rather than appeasement. This is because a lot more European countries didn’t approve of the decision made during the Munich Conference. Winston Churchill was one person who strong didn’t approve with this decision. He was a British politician who thought, “keeping peace depends on holding back the aggressor” (Document 6). Churchill believed that in order to guarantee the security of Czechoslovakia, Europe should have held Germany back and Britain and France should have worked together as an alliance.
This led to a decision for the king: cope with our demands, or we fight for our independence. After the king rejected the demands of the petition, Thomas Paine released an article entitled “Common Sense”. By this time, the people thought they were fighting to make King George III listen to their demands, but Thomas Paine introduced the idea that independence was better fighting for, and that Britain has too much power over us. He stated that Britain could drag Americans into war that they had no intention of being in, which was concluded that America is much better off on its own, and that this way of thinking was common sense. This document changed the minds of thousands of Americans to now want complete independence.
This was true to a certain extent; Gandhi’s non-cooperation campaigns had been relatively successful up until this point, he had called an end to the campaigns when they were at their height. Perhaps if he had persisted in these satyagrahas independence would have been reached much earlier, so in this sense Gandhi could have been seen to be an “obstacle” towards the progress of Indian independence. Source 17 strongly supports this opinion, saying Gandhi’s “need for spotless moral perfection hindered his party’s progress”. This too refers to when Gandhi completely halted his movement in 1922 due to the events that occurred at Chauri Chaura, where 22 policemen were
To avoid war in the years 1935 to 1938, Britain and France turned a blind eye to small acts of aggression and expansion, the United States went along with this policy. Even though Roosevelt knew of the threat the Fascist proposed he was still worried about the majority of the isolationist throughout the country. Testing the waters in 1937 he spoke about the democracies teaming up and trying to “quarantine” the problem. The public did not take to well on this idea, and he quickly dropped the subject. Even though that speech failed Roosevelt somehow managed to argue for neutrality but at the same time convince Congress to start building up the arms and increase the military and naval budget by nearly two-thirds in 1938.
The source is from a modern book named ‘Britain and Ireland, from Home Rule to Independence’ and so you could argue the source is to be given some validity however given that it is a modern text you could question some of the information it presents as it is not a primary source of information. The source suggests that Asquith’s policy and attitude was not proactive enough, therefore criticising his methods. The source states that this as well as his ‘blunder’ of including Ulster in the Home Rule Bill of 1912, which subsequently caused the first and immediate threat of Civil War in Ireland was just some of the error. This source therefore supports this view to a great extent because of this evidence. Source 8 does not support this view, however the only evidence supporting it being that tensions between Nationalists and Unionists was high and that because of their differences Ireland was preparing for a Civil War, as suggested by source 7.
The issue of the effect of the British rule in India is a very significant issue in the world. It is important because India and its people were used and treated horribly during their time as a colony of Britain. It is an issue of human rights, which makes it a very sensitive subject for the people who were ruled over by Britain, and people around the world. Britain’s imperialistic policies that treated the Indian people horribly must be addressed today in a society that is severely against this kind of treatment. The lasting effects of the British rule over India can still be seen today making this issue significant.