This furthered the Indian’s desire for independence but they were still faced with the challenges of overcoming the divisions within India. Members of Congress were appalled by this high-handed action, although they also sympathized with Britain’s fight against Fascism. As shown in throughout the war. The main opposition to India’s independence from the British came from one faction of the Conservative Party which later formed itself into the Imperial Defense League. As told in source 16.
Secondly, another two key repressive policies of William Pitt were the ‘Two Acts’, the Seditious Meetings Act and Treasonable Act, both of 1795. The Treasonable Act appeared to be a vicious attack on personal liberties. Similarly to the suspension of Habeas Corpus, it was put it in by Pitt to install fear into radicals by extending the definition of the word ‘treason’ to both speaking and writing. However, this was arguably more effective than the abolition of Habeas Corpus as it lowered the amount of people writing about the cause to gain support, as people such as Paine and Hardy were effectively spreading the radical message
Gandhi was desperate to get rid of caste system, whereas Mao wanted to discard the Confucianism system. Thus both wanted to get rid of two similar systems in each of their countries. However, Mao wanted to devastate KMT and Gandhi on the other hand wanted Muslims to get along with Indians. Thirdly, to gain the power politically, Gandhi has held a conference several times such as the event, burning reference books in front of citizens. Regarding mao, He actually gained support by the things he did such as, giving his people better education and giving women more rights.
In both these sources the weight of the evidence suggests greatly that that religious differences provided the main cause for the Indian mutiny of 1857, whereas source 3 argues that the caste system was the main cause of the munity however this does link in with religious difference and the weight of this source is not as strong as it was written before the mutiny even happened. So overall sources 1 and 2 most strongly agree with the hypothesis while source 3 suggest it greatly contributed to the mutiny, however ultimately we can infer from all three of these sources that religious differences where the most significant cause of the mutiny in
Imperialism is the act of an empire taking rule over foreign countries. Imperialism had both positive and negative effects on India. During the 1700’s the British East India Company took advantage of other countries’ natural resources such as India’s (India: British East India Company). The company also wanted to control countries’ markets which they could do through imperialism. The British East India Company had successfully imperialized India by taking advantage of India’s political rivalries at the time, pushing the religious differences in India to create further religious tensions, and taking over little parts of India at a time.
Arguably, he had wanted to limit the influence of them due to his distrust of their background and knowledge gained through being educated in foreign institutions. On the contrary, Source B claims that “Mao was unsure” about what negative consequences the campaign might bring about. According to the second source, Mao genuinely wanted the intellectuals to “join the revolution of their own free will rather than being forced to do” rather than accuse them for being a threat to the Communist regime. It seems to be a reasonable explanation of his intentions as he was very much concerned with the CPC becoming more bureaucratic, which was highlighted by the Three-Antis Campaign of 1951, and therefore he wanted to find a solution to this problem through hearing what the educated part of society had to say. Moreover, Mao’s famous saying “unity, criticism, unity” suggests that the campaign indeed had good intentions, not implying any “trap”.
The Sultan, the pashas, Hoja, and the janissaries all wanted a Muslim world with good relations with other religions minus the Christians. It was the misunderstanding of Muslims by Christians and Christians by Muslims that fueled the fire in this conflict. With the Muslims caught up with religion and not making technological advances a priority they fell to the overpowering European empires which they try to destroy. It was these misunderstandings and oppressions that brought the Ottomans to a halt but the relation that only the Hoja and the young scholar made and finally understood at the end is what draws us in to know that at least these two could co-exist without religion getting in the
However, it is clear that the magnitude of certain acts significantly determines whether or not that act can be forgiven. American society proved to be hesitant to forgive, because congress declared war on terrorism shortly afterward, and our troops continue to fight and die in the Middle East. As previously stated earlier in this paper, forgiveness is a concept that is only attributed effectively f there is a spiritual healing experience for the victim and genuine remorse from the perpetrator; however, as Moshe Bejski puts it, “does repentance alone justify and bring about forgiveness and allows crimes to be forgotten?” (Bejski) Collectively, American society may have forgiven the attackers and since the incident occurred more than a decade ago we could look upon the draconic incident and contemplate it with some detachment. However, the American population as a whole may have forgiven or have pushed aside the harsh memories of that day, but close family members of those affected may not be so quick for mercy. So we are back to the overwhelming question that has been the focus
Hate Crimes By Tashena Estelle Com 172 Hate crimes are defined as the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of who they are. Hate crimes are also defined by federal law as criminal acts motived by an assailant prejudice against victim’s religion, race, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation. The word is full of hate. The problem of hate does not seem to be subsiding either, by a long shot. To think after all the years to past, things would have gotten better!
There were several consequences that developed due to the rise of religious fundamentalism that proved to be detrimental on both the regional and global scale. On the regional scale, the rise of religious fundamentalists that were known for their violent nature created political instability and the rise of authoritarian regimes in response as extremists threatened the secular foundations of independent states. Making matters worse, the extremist stance and violent methods that the religious fundamentalists adopted translated into the constant disruptions of peace processes which led to the protraction of regional conflicts. While not all religious fundamentalists had a global outreach, those groups that did have the international network played a critical role in the rise of global terrorism and the undermining of international law due to their illegal and brutal actions. Evidently, the impacts of the rise of religious fundamentalism was undeniably significant and detrimental on both a regional and global level.