The British introduced a parliamentary system of government to the Indians. As stated in document 3 by Romesh Dutt, “Englishman has given the people of India the greatest human blessing – peace.” They have introduced Western Education. This has brought an ancient and civilized nation in touch with modern thought, modern sciences, and modern life. This means that the British have positively affected India because they brought over their knowledge and educated the natives, which results in more skilled workers. They also modernized India with their economic system of Mercantilism, and their parliamentary form of government.
The lasting effects of the British rule over India can still be seen today making this issue significant. This issue is complex due to the fact that there are two sides or viewpoints to this issue. There is the viewpoint that the British had an overly positive impact on the Indian people, and there is viewpoint that the British had an overly negative impact on the Indian people. It is hard to form an opinion on this issue due to the fact that each side has strong support to its view. For this same reason the public opinion is divided with some people recognizing more negatives outweighing the positives while some suggest the opposite.
‘Do you agree with the view that the British public’s enthusiasm for the Empire increased during the Second Boer War (1899-1902)?’ Source 4 agrees with the view that the British public’s enthusiasm for the Empire increased during the Second Boer War. It suggests that the country was overjoyed at the news of a military development, but at the end implies that it was only possible for people to form this opinion through the influence of press. Source 6 supports the content of this Source to some extent, agreeing with the view that people supported imperialistic propaganda. This Source suggests that people believed that they had to support imperialism (because of propaganda), not because they wanted to, using music halls as evidence. On the other hand, source 5 suggests that imperialism was ok, but the way the Boer war was fought was not.
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.
In document 1, by Cicil Rhodes, there is a discussion of the superiority of the British people. The Britons believed that they were the superior and first race of the world. The Britons honestly believed that by taking over all land and everybody who inhabited it, they were doing what was best for all nations around the world. This type of self confidence is not always a positive thing. In document 2, given by Dadabhai Nairobi, both the positive and negative effects of the British empire are described.
Not only did they westernized their education with modern sciences and modern life, but they also made a frame for the to establish laws and courts of justice (Document3). The British built a strong and efficient administration ran the government for the Indians, deciding that they would not be able to run their government properly, became a problem later for India. Imperialism may have been a positive force for India in many ways, but the economic gain benefitted
The Uk judiciary has different methods that provide the protection of civil liberties within britain. However, there are also different drawbacks that make these protections difficult in the face of parliamentay pressure. The European convention on Human Rights Act 1998 has effectivley provided a stable document that reassures and states the rights of all citizens over Britain. Since this act has been passed, judges have been able to rule and make more effective decisions. This is because this act has persuaded judges to rule more confidentally rather than having to follow instructions of the common law e.g precedents.
This supports the view that Wolsey strengthened Henry’s control of his kingdom as it shows a firsthand view that Wolsey was able to secure order and peace during his rule as Cavendish saw ‘order, quietness and obedience’. Order, quietness and obedience are all factors which show that the kingdom was secure and thus, Henry was in a stronger position and there was no resistance to him. The provenance of this does however counter the idea that Source 4 is reliable to support the view as the nature of the source was an account written on Wolsey’s life after his death. This suggests that the source could not be entirely reliable as the account was written after Wolsey’s death meaning the account could have the purpose of reflecting on Wolsey’s life in a positive manner to respect him and his family and praise his contributions rather than
Gandhi’s four principles of non-violent protest caused complex problems for the British rule, based around the fact that the Raj was built upon Indian support if that was removed there would be no more Raj. These four principles were Satyagraha, Ahimsa, Swadesh and Swaraj. Satyagraha has the literal meaning of truth-force or soul-force. Gandhi describes Satyagraha as ‘not predominantly civil disobedience but a quiet and irresistible pursuit of truth’. Satyagraha requires each campaigner to commit themselves completely for the cause.
“Kim” Formal Commentary Hope Lehman Rudyard Kipling wrote “Kim” displaying his own imperialist beliefs. During this time “Kim” embodied the attitude Kipling observed between India and its British rule in the early 20th century. This book displays Kipling’s belief that Britain had a right to ‘own’ India and he never even thought otherwise. The main character Kim was born into this view that Britain owned India and grew up in this manner so naturally had no reason to question this way of life. Though it is hard to excuse Kipling’s attitude towards this decade in history, we cannot ignore the historical fact in which this book possesses.