Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Why was Britain able to establish an Empire in India?

4 bytes removed, 01:58, 8 April 2016
no edit summary
==Indirect Rule==
India was not only weak at this time it was also divided among many competing local leaders. The fragmentation of the Mughal Empire meant that there was a great deal if instability over much of Indian. Areas that came under the direct and indirect influence of the British tended to be more stable <ref> Spear, p. 98 #.</ref>" . Many Indians welcomes the stability that the British brought, especially in the late eighteenth century, although they resented the various taxes that were imposed on them, by the foreigners. The British adopted a very clever strategy in India when it came to administering their new found territories. They did not directly administer the majority of their new territories at least at first. They often left the local rulers in place, with all their privileges and wealth. They also did not interfere with the local landowning elites. The British tended to rule through these elites. They used them to collect taxes and enforce law and order, and in return, they were allowed a measure of autonomy in their local areas. These tactics meant that many local Indian elites, both Hindu, and Muslim, accepted British influence. Furthermore, the British tolerated all the various creeds and beliefs in India. They did not seek to impose any religion or ideology on the Indians and in a sense they revived the tolerant policies of many Indian rulers such as Ashoka and Akbar the Great. This reconciled many Indians to the British Raj.<ref>Peers, Douglas M. ''India under Colonial Rule 1700–1885'', (Harlow and London: Pearson Longmans, 2003). p. 163#.</ref>" .
==Lack of a National Consciousness==
Nationalism is a modern phenomenon. In the eighteenth century, there was no real national identity in India. The many people in the Indian sub-continent did not regard themselves as Indians. It was only in the twentieth century that the people of the sub-continent had a sense of belonging to a nation. The majority of people identified with their tribe, clan ethnic group or religion. This meant that the peoples of the sub-continent were very divided among themselves. This allowed the British to use some of the natives to help them in running and governing the Empire. This is best seen in the British policies on the Indian army. The British East India Company regularly used native Indian troops in order to defend and expand their territory in the sub-continent. Without these Indian troops, it is highly unlikely that the British would ever have been able to establish their ascendency in the sub-continent. It was also a factor in the conquest of large areas of Asia and Africa by Europeans at this time and later <ref> Smith, Simon . ''British Imperialism 1750–1970''. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998), p 78 .</ref>".
==Conclusion==
Britain on the face of it- should never have been able to conquer India. It had no direct presence in the country. Indeed, they left the conquest of India, to the company, the East Indian Company. However, the British East India Company was able to lay the foundation of an empire in the Indian sub-continent because of the decline of the Mughal Empire, the country was divided politically and there was no sense of national unity while they cleverly used the local elites to administer their new domains. It was these factors that helped to establish British rule in India, that lasted almost two hundred years until 1947 . <ref> Smith, p. 78 </ref>".
==References==

Navigation menu