What are the odds that a group outnumbered by millions could take over the millions? British imperialism began all the way up from the 1600s. India was viewed as wealthy, it was home to 300 million people and all the resources you could dream of. By 1707 India’s empire was collapsing and looked weak. The weakness enticed the British, the East India company that was a British company, took over India. The British government took complete political control after the Sepoy Rebellion in 1857.
British imperialism had a negative impact on India because of the army training techniques that were violent towards Indians, and the new government that the British brought with them. Well it can be noted that The British army technique was taught to the …show more content…
Lalvaini claims that the British helped India by bringing their young Indians to England to learn even more of the bright British ways, and that they will come back well trained (Lalvani). Based on percentages of the people who could read and write in India we can see that from 1901 to about the time that India got their imperialism that less than 20% of the people could read and write. From when British left, India made a huge jump to 30% and worked their way up all the way to about 60% of people who could read and write (document 9) . This shows that the British were not helping India’s knowledge but more or less they were constricting India’s potential to learn. Secondly, Lalvani also claims that the British helped improve the life expectancy in India (Lalvani). As shown from the years British ruled that this is untrue. Before the British rule from 11th-18th century there were only 18 famines. But from 1770-1947, the years the British ruled, there was a total of 40 famines and more than 60 million to die ( document 11). This shows that the tough rule that the British had on India didn’t help with the general health but as a matter of fact, it made it worse. The British coming to India certainly didn’t help India’s social …show more content…
Dr. Lalvani believes and claims that the British had India advance and thrive. But the British only helped for their own gain, and they certainly caused much more heartache then help. Under the British rule they had an unfair government that had brought harsh laws and division throughout that was so bad that it had even lasted even longer after the British left. Also the British had overworked the land making it weak and less able to carry a fruitful harvest and with the stuff that was grown, it was transported back to England so the British could make money. India under British rule was unable to reach their capability of stuff that they could learn due to needing time to harvest food and work. With all the food being transported away this led to many mouths left unfed due to their food being shipped away. Many famines led to millions of Indians dead. Lalvani only counted the advancements that the British had set up and not the pain and loss and consequences that these caused. These consequences are still a daily factors for the Indian people as of
British imperialism had a negative impact on India because of the army training techniques that were violent towards Indians, and the new government that the British brought with them. Well it can be noted that The British army technique was taught to the …show more content…
Lalvaini claims that the British helped India by bringing their young Indians to England to learn even more of the bright British ways, and that they will come back well trained (Lalvani). Based on percentages of the people who could read and write in India we can see that from 1901 to about the time that India got their imperialism that less than 20% of the people could read and write. From when British left, India made a huge jump to 30% and worked their way up all the way to about 60% of people who could read and write (document 9) . This shows that the British were not helping India’s knowledge but more or less they were constricting India’s potential to learn. Secondly, Lalvani also claims that the British helped improve the life expectancy in India (Lalvani). As shown from the years British ruled that this is untrue. Before the British rule from 11th-18th century there were only 18 famines. But from 1770-1947, the years the British ruled, there was a total of 40 famines and more than 60 million to die ( document 11). This shows that the tough rule that the British had on India didn’t help with the general health but as a matter of fact, it made it worse. The British coming to India certainly didn’t help India’s social …show more content…
Dr. Lalvani believes and claims that the British had India advance and thrive. But the British only helped for their own gain, and they certainly caused much more heartache then help. Under the British rule they had an unfair government that had brought harsh laws and division throughout that was so bad that it had even lasted even longer after the British left. Also the British had overworked the land making it weak and less able to carry a fruitful harvest and with the stuff that was grown, it was transported back to England so the British could make money. India under British rule was unable to reach their capability of stuff that they could learn due to needing time to harvest food and work. With all the food being transported away this led to many mouths left unfed due to their food being shipped away. Many famines led to millions of Indians dead. Lalvani only counted the advancements that the British had set up and not the pain and loss and consequences that these caused. These consequences are still a daily factors for the Indian people as of