British Rule in India LK by Franz Materne

Britain must pay reparations to India

maternefranz — 2021-01-19 19:35:41 UTC

Why Britain does not owe reparations to India

maternefranz — 2021-01-19 19:38:42 UTC

The myth of ’strong’ British rule in India

maternefranz — 2021-01-19 19:53:32 UTC

Severe damage to Indian textile industry

maternefranz — 2021-01-22 06:54:48 UTC

Britons tried to undermine Indian textile infrastructure (Mr Materne)

Summary of the article's position towards the integrity of the British Raj in India.

2021-01-22 07:56:47 UTC

Basically it can be said that the rule of the British in India was not intended as a strategic expansion of the 2nd British Empire.

The British came into contact with India for the first time in the form of the East India Company, which, in view of the Indian rulers, saw its supremacy as a trading power in Europe and India at risk.

An unjustified fear of state-security and financial loss moved the British to begin a conquest in the direction of India.

The British established many military outposts near or in India. These unjustifiably conquered Indian land sections, which meant that India was (initially) not completely ruled by the British, but only partially and therefore no stable administration of India could come together.

British rule in India

2021-01-22 07:58:28 UTC

During the British rule there wasn´t an effort to improve the Indian infrastructure. India was built in response to crisis. They only did what was necessary to protect their power. When British capitalists wanted to invest more into the indian government, British officials refused, unless it would directly protect their power.
(Lorin)

British Investment in India and forming of society

2021-01-22 07:59:11 UTC

During the British rule in India they already invested in Indian society and infrastructure by building railways, the new capitol Delhi, which costed them millions, and schools and university giving more Indians the chance on education.
Moreover they indirectly unified the country and brought a unifying language.
-Felicitas

The effect of the two World Wars on India

2021-01-22 08:00:28 UTC

India got used as Britain's stepping stone to defend their position in Asia, destroying India's mentality and economy. The World Wars brought economic depression.

- Lars Schädlich

The image of order and control is a fiction

beyerlenils — 2021-01-22 08:00:53 UTC

From the mid 18th Century to independence in 1947, the British presided over a regime that was chaotic, violent, driven by uncontrolled passions and profoundly wracked by anxiety.
(Nils)

Reasons:

2021-01-22 08:01:06 UTC

India´s economy itself is better than the british one
Indian industrialisation destroyed the British equivalent
Britain paid millions for the new capital
Britain actually gave INdia the chance to build up their economy and industries

- Lars Mench

Image of British rule dominates

severindana12 — 2021-01-22 08:01:20 UTC

from the mid 18th century to independence the British presided over a regime that was chaotic, violent & driven by uncontrolled passions
(Dana)

Starvation

rhweczw7k5 — 2021-01-22 08:02:29 UTC

Between 15-29 million Indians died due to starvation (food was given to well-supplied soldiers and european stockpiles)
(Laeticia)

Britain wouldn't be as far today without India

2021-01-22 08:03:37 UTC

Indias economy dropped in every aspect for the advantage of the British. Basically Britain exploited India to make their industrialisation possible.
(Ernesto)

Fear of political challenge

beyerlenils — 2021-01-22 08:05:09 UTC

In the mid of the 19th Century, British capitalists wanted the government in India to invest more, but British officials refused to act unless it would directly protect their power.
(Nils)

WW1 & WW2

rhweczw7k5 — 2021-01-22 08:05:52 UTC

India had to contribute millions of soldiers to the British forces (more than New Zealand, Canada, Australia, South Africa combined)
(Laeticia)

Britain was not stopping India from their own Industrialisation

2021-01-22 08:05:56 UTC

India's industrialisation was actually stronger than the British one. The jute manufacturing is a good example. The skilled workers and managers saw the opportunity to produce and manufacture more than just jute. Producing in India became cheaper than producing in Britain and technology started to develop in other areas of the country. Britain did nothing against it and technically helped building up an economy in India. India's economy even turned out to be better and stronger.
Marlene

Britain didn't help in any aspect

2021-01-22 08:11:27 UTC

Even when people thought Brittain was doing something good for India (building railways) it was still just for their advantage
(Ernesto)

Reparation payment

2021-01-22 08:11:43 UTC

Foreign rulers have brought a lot of issues in a positive or negative way to India. On the one hand, thez had forced fear, death and slavery. But they weren't there to make things bad. They have brought adavntages for india in certain ways:
First they have to support the industrialization and make India come forward, second, thez have built up a infrastructure, which wouldn't be there without them.
At last but not at least, they have built up a new capital named NEw Dehli.
In the points that this article gives, there can't be made a personal conclusion. The article gives a evrz divided point of view, but it mostly only contains of positive aspects.

Bolin

severindana12 — 2021-01-22 08:13:20 UTC

Railways were used to transport British troops quickly across India to suppress dissent/different opinions
(Dana)

2021-01-22 08:17:30 UTC

The Indians were treated like subjects.
The Britain's just see the Indians like a way to advance their country. (Malik)

The myth that india was a by British controlled Country:

2021-01-22 08:21:29 UTC

the british tried to make india look like a calm country, strongly controlled by british. some aspects speak against this "myth". for example, indian people had to fight revolts to improve conditions in india. A good example of this is the highly "respected" construction of the railway lines to facilitate the transport of troops, but this construction was only carried out after several revolts. Another example of the poor conditions for the Indian people is the construction of the water canals, which only came about after several economic crises.

Conclusion: the fact that India is a very quiet and controlled country could be shown to be partially wrong based on the examples given

-Reda Mahrach

Britain paid millions for the new capital

lars_mench — 2021-01-22 08:23:16 UTC

In the last years of their rule the British spent millions on the new capital at New Delhi, an imperial folly which left India with one of the greatest capitals in the world.

- Lars Mench

2021-01-22 08:23:44 UTC

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the infrastructure of Britain or a British colony was only improved in response to the fear of nearby economic crises. These fears did not apply to India at first, and neither did the development of Indian infrastructure promise much profit for Britain or British traders.

When an economic crisis hit India around 1850, the railway networks were only expanded very rapidly, as the British had to realize that they might have to move many soldiers from one place to another within a short period of time, in case of an Indian protest.

Crises such as this moved British capitalists to advise British officials in India to put more effort into establishing a stable Indian government, but these official acts did not do so in fear of losing their powerstatus.

2021-01-22 08:24:17 UTC

During the time of a famine, more and more Indian networks, which were created to help each other in a crisis collapsed in fear of a British response. So the British besiegers built supply camps with job opportunities outside of the administrative offices to keep the angry Indians away from them.

The Second World War had made India a self-financing military power, which was on the side of Britain, but also brought a risk of revolt with it. Added to this was the greed for power of the imperial families, who committed several massacres of the Indian population as an expression of panic. As a result, even Indian rulers lost their belief in or their approval towards the Raj.

After World War II India's society was economically depressed. Despite many attempts by Indian politicians and opponents of the Raj, it was initially not possible to establish a stable social order.

In the face of the economic and social low point and the rage of the Indian population, the British officials and soldiers fled.

2021-01-22 08:26:25 UTC

- J a n B e y e r

Bengal Famine

2021-01-22 11:37:37 UTC

15-29 Millionen People died of starvation under the british regime. 4 Million Bengalis that died in the famine of 1948 are nothing compared to it. How could so many Indians die? Churchil denied Indians access to food in order to feed British Soldiers. Unbeievable! (Merdan)