It did not simply have a voice, it had the organisational basis from which to grow and develop as a political force. The 1920’s saw the regrouping and consolidation of Congress and after the First World War the party became associated with Mahatma Gandhi. By the end of the 1920’s the British government were desperately striving to keep the empire and the British Raj intact while at the same time conciliation Indian opinion. The rise of Gandhi during this period is of great significance. By the early 1920’s Congress had become a political party with a mass appeal and a following of millions throughout India.
In 1945, the British viceroy handed power back to India freely. Mohandas Gandhi fought with nonviolence before the British handed over the power back to India. Gandhi describes the positive motives for a nonviolence approach to Indian independence, “Passive resistance is a method of securing rights by personal suffering…” (Doc 3) India was a huge asset to the British Empire especially during World War II. Gandhi said, “I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire.” (Doc 3) He yelled this statement during the Salt March. Jomo Kenyatta, the first president of Kenya and leader for independence, stated, “The land is ours.
These pacifists knew that the only way to stop their prosecutors is by standing up to them. Mahatma Gandhi unlike most of the Indian community wanted to stand up to Great Britain. In passive resistance he called it a “weapon of weak men”. Gandhi believed that the way to stop the prosecution of his people was by civil disobedience. Lastly, Henry David Thoreau implemented civil disobedience by boycotting taxes in rebellion to the Mexican-American War.
All of his evidence really points to the Indians being good warriors but not getting the appreciation they deserve after the war is over. He does not give much evidence that is against his thesis, everything seems to point back to his thesis. He is very opinionated with the support that he gives for his thesis. Robert S. Allen really uses his evidence very well to support his thesis. He is always giving more evidence stating that the Indians were not being taken care of unless the British needed them for war.
dina Unit 2 a Question a) How far do sources 10, 11, 12 suggest that British rule in India, in the years before the outbreak of the first world was in 1914, was based on the respect of the Indian people? There are three sources that I am going to be analyzing and discussing whether they agree that the British rule in India was based on the respect of the Indian people. Both sources 10 and 11 completely support this as they both state that it was down to the respect of the Indian people, however, source 12 supports but also contradicts with the statement because it is coming from the other side. In my opinion I disagree that the British rule on India was based on the respect and support of the Indian people. Sources 10 and 11 are very much in agreement as they both support the fact that the British rule on India was based on the respect and support of the Indian people.
What reasons does Henry offer to suggest that the British were not worthy of trust at that time? Henry brings up how The British have massive navies and armed forces, yet no enemies. This is an excellent example of why we couldn’t trust them. There must be a reason for this and it isn’t a peaceful one. 3.
A major difference was that Gandhi campaigned against unjust laws of the British government, while Martin Luther King Jr. campaigned for rights that "colored" people were already lawfully supposed to have. For instance, according to the U.S. government, all people, regardless of skin color, had the equal right of suffrage, but many racists refused to accept this and attacked non-whites when they attempted to vote. Gandhi fought British oppression with
This book is basically a biography of Mahatma Gandhi, who was both a political and spiritual leader. He was vastly known for his nonviolent resistance, wining only by using tactics like information warfare or nonviolent protests. By only using his policy of nonviolent resistance, he was able to lead India to freedom from British rule. This book is a very useful cource. Chakrabarty, Bidyut.
Do you agree that Indian desires for Independence from Britain were caused mainly by the impact of the First World War Indian desires for independence originate from a variety occurrences from the same period, both Pre and Post World War One, however it can be argued that no event had the same impact on both the British ability to rule India, and the Indian desires for independence from the British Raj. The Sources that agree with the impact of the world war caused the desires for independence are 2 and source 3, both referencing to the Indian war effort during the Great War, hoe their contribution would bring great benefits. In source 2, Gandhi said that fighting for the British was the right thing to do as they were fighting for civilisation, and that all those who live in the Empire are British, if they fought for Britain, then they would be accepted as true citizens. Source 3, is explaining that the British did not reward the Indians enough for their extreme courage during the war, and that the gradual process of ‘Indianisation’ was not good enough for the Indians, they wanted a faster system, and even Gandhi has decided that the British had to go. An agreement to the question is found in source 2, in a speech from early 1915, Gandhi expresses the opinion that everyone is a member of the British Empire, meaning that if they could prove their resourcefulness and ability to support the Empire, the Indians would be rewarded with something like independence or a faster system of Indianisation.
The communists always tried to suppress religions anyway possible and because of Ngo Dinh Diem being Catholic and in charge of South Vietnam at the start of the resistance to the North. They felt it was a smart move to wipe as many of them out as they could. The Vietcong and North Vietnamese also had the goal of causing “…an uproar in the world and in the US….” Due to its Vietnamese cultural, historical, and political heritage, Hue was a center of international attention. The communists’ occupation and massacres there served their intents of gaining superiority at the negotiations, and especially of threatening the American people, causing them to worry about their military relatives in Vietnam up to the point of urging the US government to promptly bring