The British policy of divide and rule had borne fruit justify the statements by using appropriate examples
Answers
The British policy of divide and rule
The arrangement of 'partition and rule' is viewed as a component utilized since the beginning to keep up magnificent standard. It recognizes prior ethno-strict divisions in the public eye and afterward controls them so as to forestall subject people groups' bound together test to lead by outcasts. Numerous Indian and different researchers have kept up that the British embraced this methodology so as to fortify the Raj. Both common clash and Muslim rebellion are viewed as being made by this technique. This understanding sidelines every one of the elements which constrained the Muslims to look for a country. Indeed, even the backers of the hypothesis deny the way that distress, disturbance, mutual conflicts and poor state of peace debilitate the grasp of the decision specialists over the nation. In this manner, to contend for the presence of a 'gap and rule' procedure suggests that the British were set up to hazard flimsiness which went counter to their necessity for peace. Ill bred conduct and bad form didn't prepare for congruity and collaboration. The Congress was irritating the Muslims and their administration despite the fact that plainly the Britishers had been utilizing the 'separation and rule' approach with respect to the Muslims. It persuades to finish up, regardless of whether the Congress administration didn't know about the British's 'gap and rule' strategy or it embraced purposely the steady frame of mind towards the British in satisfying their evil targets of vivisection of India.
For the British Empire, India was a great attraction hub. The result of the collapse of the Mughal Empire and the conquest that has been going on over India for so long has been amazingly numerous. India was a sign of Imperial grandeur for Britain's rulers. We felt that the role of Britain as superpower relied on their domination over India for much of the 19th century and some of the 20th.
EXPLANATION:
British rulers well knew that by using and playing with diversities of the Indian people – princes against tribes, Hindu against Muslims, castes against castes, and provinces against provinces-they had firmly established their hegemony in India. Period 1756-1858–The old relationship of the conqueror and conquered in India since the 10th century came to an end with the beginning of the British rule over India. This was the time for the British to conquer, annex and unite. Initially, by leveraging the uniqueness of the citizens of India, East India Company invaded and created the British Empire in Indeed. As the rule of governance, the government has adopted Laissez-faire. Consequently, it did not engage in any social service or health programs. The only goal was to govern the country for its own gain.
By 1858 the rulers began to play Indians –princes against peoples; Hindus against Muslims; castes against castes; and provinces against provincial governments when British Empirical rule was firmly established in India. British rulers have adopted the "divide and rule" policy. They played with Indian people, kings, Muslims; castes and castes; and colonies, against provinces. They played against each other. They decided to leave India during the Second World War. Still in that day, Britain's rulers played and split the country into two–India and Pakistan. They have already drained much of the wealth of India from their exploitative policies. They're now leaving India crying. The country's division made millions of Indians dead or poor and homeless.
The British initially looked favorably onto the Hindu community, who annexed power from the Muslim rulers. Hindus / Brahmin were encouraged to choose modern education. In the growing influence of Brahmin and its grip on the Hindu community, the leaders had seen their rule in India pose a potential challenge. British encouraged the formation of numerous caste groups to vociferously resist Brahmins' predominance in modern appeals. In whom they saw their rule to India as a potential threat. They permitted the development on a caste-based basis of non-Brahman castes and other groups. Throughout southern and western India, the agitation against Brahmins has contributed to ferocity. In North India it remained mild where communalism already disturbed the country's peace. They provided the non-Brahmins, Muslims and Anglo-Indians with financial assistance and created a government quota. Thus, they opened the doors to other castes and communities for new opportunities. It served two purposes–one for them to receive credit for improvement and protection of the downtrodden and two, keeping indigenous people occupied in their struggles.
Firstly, the rulers shrewdly and plannedly drifted Muslims from Hindus. Muslims have always been reluctant to surrender their dominant position. They were unable to contend in modern appeals and incentives with Hindus and, in particular, the Brahmins. They also developed fear of the Hindu majority, if India became independent at any point in time. Minto-Morley reforms, known as the Government of India Act of 1909, accepted the demands for community representation in the Imperial legislative councils and district councils, adequate public service share and local authorities, adequate guarantees for the protection and promotion of Muslim culture, and the Muslims ' weight to defend their legitimate interests. The Act has developed a new way of distributing and managing resources. It was the first successful dose of Indian politics communalization.