British Colonialism And Imperialism In The 19th And 20th Century

Colonialism and imperialism in the 19th and 20th centuries were crucial factors in the shaping of the modern world. From the Americas to Asia the reach of imperialism stretched across the globe and its impact has changed the world. The British empire benefitted greatly from imperialism and colonialism with much of the empires wealth coming from its colonies. India particularly had much of its resources exploited for the benefit of the British empire. However, it was not only India’s resources that were impacted by Britain’s imperialism, but also its political and cultural boundaries. This essay will argue that British imperialism in India was a key influence in shaping India. This will be accomplished by highlighting the effects of colonial …show more content…
In the article, Hazewell states, “whether the English have been right or wrong in making themselves masters of India, it is certain that they were forced upon the work against their own wishes”. This implies another justification used to promote British rule of India. To explain, the argument presented is that the British had to rule India because Indians themselves were incapable of self-governance. Again, it can be inferred by this that the British presented their rule as paternalistic and in the best interest of India. Similar to Maulcay, Hazewell likewise presents the British rule of India as a social justice. Hazewell also states that India is widely diverse and because of this diversity, Indians would never be able to unite against British rule. He compares this to how the west once was and further suggests that without British rule, India would constantly be engaged in internal conflict and never be able to develop. This argument again argues that Indians are inferior and the British must rule India otherwise it will fall into chaos as a result of Indian inferiority. Maulcays speech was given in 1833 and Hazewell’s article was published in 1857 but despite over a twenty-year difference, the rhetoric contained in both is mostly the same. These three sources are significant as they demonstrate one of the main arguments Britain used to …show more content…
Jinnah, a member of the Muslim league, argued against Nehru’s notion that British imperialism caused the division of India, particularly between Muslims and Hindus. Rather, he argued that Muslims are not a minority, but are a nation in their own right, and are a separate culture entirely. This is contradictory to Nehru’s argument that India was historically culturally united as Jinnah argues that this unity never existed and the two cultures had always been separate. Jinnah also stated that India was ruled, and for, the majority Hindus rather than the minority Muslims. This echos the same fears that Hindus had about muslims; that one would eventually dominate the other (186). Again, these fears can be attributed in part to the Deciennal Census that made Muslims aware of their minority status and may have been a contributing cause to Jinnah’s two-nation theory. While Jinnah argues against the extent of british influence on India, his theory is a response to ideas generated by Nehru about the effect of British imperialism. Therefore, British rule provided the social and political context in which these ideas developed and contributed to the main ideologies that changed