The proportion of British troops in India before the revolt was ?
Answers
Answer:
The British Indian Army was the principal military of the British Indian Empire before its decommissioning in 1947. It was responsible for the defense of both the British Indian Empire and the princely states,[1] which could also have their own armies.[2] The Indian Army was an important part of the British Empire's forces, both in India and abroad, particularly during the First World War and the Second World War.
The term "Indian Army" appears to have been first used informally, as a collective description of the Presidency armies (the Bengal Army, the Madras Army and the Bombay Army) of the Presidencies of British India, particularly after the Indian Rebellion. The first army officially called the "Indian Army" was raised by the government of India in 1895, existing alongside the three long-established presidency armies. However, in 1903 the Indian Army absorbed these three armies. The Indian Army should not be confused with the "Army of India" (1903–1947) which was the Indian Army itself plus the "British Army in India" The British Indian Army was the principal military of the British Indian Empire before its decommissioning in 1947. It was responsible for the defence of both the British Indian Empire and the princely states,[1] which could also have their own armies.[2] The Indian Army was an important part of the British Empire's forces, both in India and abroad, particularly during the First World War and the Second World War.
In britsh army most of them were Indians.
HOPE IT HELPS YOU.................
Answer:
The rule of the British in India is possibly the most controversial and the most hotly debated aspect of the history of the British empire. Admirers of British rule point to the economic developments, the legal and administrative system, the fact that India became the centre of world politics. Critics of British rule generally point out that all of these benefits went to a tiny British ruling class and the majority of Indians gained little. Admirers of British rule counter this by saying that most Indians were poor and oppressed by their own leaders before the British arrived, and that British rule was less harsh on ordinary Indians than rule by Indian princes.
Perhaps the main reason why the arguments are so heated and so complex is that India was very different from the other territories that made up the empire. North America and Australia, for example, were sparsely populated and their populations were less economically developed than Britain. India, however, had a huge population and was just as developed as Britain in the 1700s when the British arrived.
The British were able to take control of India mainly because India was not united. The British signed treaties and made military and trading alliances with many of the independent states that made up India. The British were very effective at infiltrating these states and gradually taking control. They often left the local princes in charge of the various parts of India. These local princes were effective at maintaining British rule and gained much from being loyal to the British.
Explanation:
Here's my parrot to wish you good luck
Plz mark as braininess
