British vision of India has no single coherent set of ideas. On the contrary, the ideas were shot through with contradictions and inconsistencies. Discuss.
British rule in India lacked a clear vision. In-fact, it was full of contradictions and inconsistencies. The policy followed by the British administrators reflected a pure opportunism than a genuine desire for nation building. In fact, the approach was hypocritical.
The best example was the European attitude towards the Illbert Bill. Rule of Law, Equality were all just notional and nominal terms which bore no real significance. The blatant attempt to supsend the habeas corpus by Rowlatt Act in 1919, signified that Indians were just subjects to the British.
Lord Wellesley, Hastings and Bentinck pretended to work for the Indian state and its betterment, but in reality the only ambition they nourished was the annexation and exploitation of the native states.
The pretext of good governance was only an excuse for the interference in the affairs of the native states. Dalhousie's "Doctrine of Lapse" was blatant manifestation of aggressive adventurism in the affairs of Indian states.
The social-religious reforms, the legal reforms aimed at creating dissentions among the existing religious identities than bringing unity among them.
The legal reforms heavily favoured the British, it only provided Indians a nominal right of participation. The representation was minimal to give them any say in the policy making.
In the area of administration, only the lower posts were open to the Indians. The Britishers felt, giving Indians an equal share in administration and judiciary may hamper their own interest.
Even in the end, the Cripps proposal of 1942 and the Balkan plan exposed fully the divisive agenda of the British Government.
British rule in India lacked a clear vision. In-fact, it was full of contradictions and inconsistencies. The policy followed by the British administrators reflected a pure opportunism than a genuine desire for nation building. In fact, the approach was hypocritical.
The best example was the European attitude towards the Illbert Bill. Rule of Law, Equality were all just notional and nominal terms which bore no real significance. The blatant attempt to supsend the habeas corpus by Rowlatt Act in 1919, signified that Indians were just subjects to the British.
Lord Wellesley, Hastings and Bentinck pretended to work for the Indian state and its betterment, but in reality the only ambition they nourished was the annexation and exploitation of the native states.
The pretext of good governance was only an excuse for the interference in the affairs of the native states. Dalhousie's "Doctrine of Lapse" was blatant manifestation of aggressive adventurism in the affairs of Indian states.
The social-religious reforms, the legal reforms aimed at creating dissentions among the existing religious identities than bringing unity among them.
The legal reforms heavily favoured the British, it only provided Indians a nominal right of participation. The representation was minimal to give them any say in the policy making.
In the area of administration, only the lower posts were open to the Indians. The Britishers felt, giving Indians an equal share in administration and judiciary may hamper their own interest.
Even in the end, the Cripps proposal of 1942 and the Balkan plan exposed fully the divisive agenda of the British Government.