In your opinion what would India would have been like if Britisher's rule hadn't ended.
Answers
Answered by
1
If this had been continued then no indian would get chance to participate in administration activities or work for jobs.
Answered by
3
Well, let's try it.
Damage to India's social fabric: The British ruled India with overt encouragement to the inherent divisions already present in the Indian society. Thus they encouraged fissures between religious communities, various castes, people speaking different languages, capitalists and the laborers, farmers and the landlords and so on and so forth. Even if Gandhi were not assassinated, he wouldn't have lived for long and with the force that was binding the Indians in a slender thread gone, it wouldn't have been long before the entire Indian society erupted.Famines: We all remember the Bengal famine of 1943 where an estimated 2 to 7 million people died. The thing most of us would be interested in knowing that this famine was not a natural disaster. It was a man made famine. At the height of World War II when Bengal was reeling under famine, Churchill refused to allow food supplies saying "starvation of the anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks", and instead diverted supplies to Burma and Greece. Post independence India has witnessed very few deaths due to famine relative to that before independence. With the British lingering on for more time, we would have witnessed far more deaths in recent famines and droughts.Civil unrest: One of the best bargaining chips that India has with respect to the separatist and communist armed insurgencies is that India is a functioning democracy. The Indian govt. can advertise offers of chances for all to make their voices heard, thereby gaining the sympathy of the locals and eroding the support base of the separatists. This wouldn't have been true had the British been at the helm. Every rebellion would then be put down ruthlessly. The problem with this approach is that separatist movements seldom die down completely. They can at best go underground and hibernate to come back again with greater strength. It means the nature of these insurgencies as wars of attrition wouldn't have changed but the bloodshed would have been tremendously higher for every clash. Imagine what would have been the alternate scenario when the Communists of Telangana rebelled against the Nizam. The British would have thrown their might against the rebels whilst ignoring the atrocities committed by Kasim Razvi, thereby perpetuating the Nizam's misrule.Industries and Education: Within 18 years after independence, India became the seventh biggest industrial nation in the world. This was what was achieved during the time of Nehru and Shastri. I need not comment on what could have happened otherwise. Same goes with education. One can get a start by just comparing the number of premier institutes of higher learning opened during and after the British rule. Or by just noting the fact that at the time of independence, our literacy rate was just over 18% as compared to 74% now.Capitalism: The capitalists of India were not at all happy with the British rule. So they threw their weight behind the Congress and its demands for independence, even when there was a huge presence of leftists in the party hierarchy. This was due to the enormous trade restrictions placed on the Indian capitalists by the British in order to promote British goods in India. The British would surely have not let globalization to march in to India.Railways: Independent India has since more than quadrupled the length of the railway lines which she inherited in a decrepit state. The British never invested their profits accrued from the railways into its development. During the Second World War many trains were diverted to the Middle East and locomotive factories were converted into ammunition workshops. This resulted in a disaster for the Indian Railways which was already reeling under a huge debt which was almost half the national debt of British India. One can only imagine what would have been the condition of the railways had it continued being under the British.Quora: I may or may not have been writing this answer. Either I'd have been busy bowing or grovelling in front of some British Sahib or some Indian nobility, in which case I may not have written this answer for fear of repercussions. Or I'd have chosen to join a political movement against the British rule and would've written this answer.
plz mark it as brainliest.
Damage to India's social fabric: The British ruled India with overt encouragement to the inherent divisions already present in the Indian society. Thus they encouraged fissures between religious communities, various castes, people speaking different languages, capitalists and the laborers, farmers and the landlords and so on and so forth. Even if Gandhi were not assassinated, he wouldn't have lived for long and with the force that was binding the Indians in a slender thread gone, it wouldn't have been long before the entire Indian society erupted.Famines: We all remember the Bengal famine of 1943 where an estimated 2 to 7 million people died. The thing most of us would be interested in knowing that this famine was not a natural disaster. It was a man made famine. At the height of World War II when Bengal was reeling under famine, Churchill refused to allow food supplies saying "starvation of the anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks", and instead diverted supplies to Burma and Greece. Post independence India has witnessed very few deaths due to famine relative to that before independence. With the British lingering on for more time, we would have witnessed far more deaths in recent famines and droughts.Civil unrest: One of the best bargaining chips that India has with respect to the separatist and communist armed insurgencies is that India is a functioning democracy. The Indian govt. can advertise offers of chances for all to make their voices heard, thereby gaining the sympathy of the locals and eroding the support base of the separatists. This wouldn't have been true had the British been at the helm. Every rebellion would then be put down ruthlessly. The problem with this approach is that separatist movements seldom die down completely. They can at best go underground and hibernate to come back again with greater strength. It means the nature of these insurgencies as wars of attrition wouldn't have changed but the bloodshed would have been tremendously higher for every clash. Imagine what would have been the alternate scenario when the Communists of Telangana rebelled against the Nizam. The British would have thrown their might against the rebels whilst ignoring the atrocities committed by Kasim Razvi, thereby perpetuating the Nizam's misrule.Industries and Education: Within 18 years after independence, India became the seventh biggest industrial nation in the world. This was what was achieved during the time of Nehru and Shastri. I need not comment on what could have happened otherwise. Same goes with education. One can get a start by just comparing the number of premier institutes of higher learning opened during and after the British rule. Or by just noting the fact that at the time of independence, our literacy rate was just over 18% as compared to 74% now.Capitalism: The capitalists of India were not at all happy with the British rule. So they threw their weight behind the Congress and its demands for independence, even when there was a huge presence of leftists in the party hierarchy. This was due to the enormous trade restrictions placed on the Indian capitalists by the British in order to promote British goods in India. The British would surely have not let globalization to march in to India.Railways: Independent India has since more than quadrupled the length of the railway lines which she inherited in a decrepit state. The British never invested their profits accrued from the railways into its development. During the Second World War many trains were diverted to the Middle East and locomotive factories were converted into ammunition workshops. This resulted in a disaster for the Indian Railways which was already reeling under a huge debt which was almost half the national debt of British India. One can only imagine what would have been the condition of the railways had it continued being under the British.Quora: I may or may not have been writing this answer. Either I'd have been busy bowing or grovelling in front of some British Sahib or some Indian nobility, in which case I may not have written this answer for fear of repercussions. Or I'd have chosen to join a political movement against the British rule and would've written this answer.
plz mark it as brainliest.
Similar questions