Question

debate on advantage of impact of British on political on India class 8 on basis of judiciary army plz don't spam​

Answer 1

$\huge{\green{\sf{AnSwEr}}}$

• District Diwani Adalat: It was established in districts to resolve the civil disputes which were placed under the collector. In this court Hindu law was applicable for Hindus and Muslim law for Muslim. The formation Supreme Court at Calcutta under the Regulating Act of 1773 AD had original and appellate jurisdiction.

Answer 2

Answer:

The British did not have a good impact on the political conditions of India.

Explanation:

• The East India Company was created in 1600 to cash in on trading with India, which at the time accounted for more than a quarter of all the trade in the world. It soon realized, however, that its ambitions would be better served with a permanent presence in the country, and from then on the trade took off.
• As the company’s men grew prosperous, they began dreaming of expanding their territory and found little opposition.
• In some 100 or so years, through a series of conquests and some clever politicking, the company created a rival empire on the subcontinent among the already warring ones (such as the Maratha, Mughal, and Awadh regimes).
• Today, the argument goes that, had it not been for the British, those rival factions would not have coalesced into a single entity.

(But the above line is not true.)

• Few kings ever rule to benefit their people. And, yet, what the British did to India was decidedly worse:-
• Consider, for instance, India’s famines during the Raj: Between 1770 and 1947, the oppressed suffered at least 11 major ones and many minor ones, resulting in 35 million deaths. For comparison, Stalin’s purge killed 25 million, Mao’s Cultural Revolution killed 45 million, and World War II killed 55 million.
• How can we be sure that the British were to blame for those hunger deaths? Simple. There’s been no major famine in India since independence. Worse still, the British notion at the time was that governmental interference to prevent a famine was a bad idea.
• The Economist, for instance, attacked an official for letting Indians think “it is the duty of the government to keep them alive.” (The Canadian author, Malcolm Gladwell, has a great episode of his podcast Revisionist History looking at how the worst Indian famine, between 1943 and 1945, was precipitated by British prime minister Winston Churchill.)

Hope this helps...

Please mark as Brainliest.