Extract and their land it also analyses the social,

Extract 1 was written by an Indian historian
man called Tapan Raychaudhuri who studied in Bengal but lectured in England,
this extract was written in 1996 and is an argument against the British empire.
This is a nationalistic and post- colonial extract this means within this
extract Tapan is discussing the basis of the human consequences of external
control and economic exploitation of the Indians and their land it also
analyses the social, political and cultural regime of the colonies which could
be biased.

In this extract Tapan Raychaudhuri
expresses his views that the title ‘Indian Munity’ was inaccurate, he believes
this because everyone in the country supported the rebellion. The title ‘Indian
Munity’ has resulted from the ‘expressed accumulation of anger’ by parts of the
population from north and central India however this was false because many
Indians supported the British during the rebellion such as the richer Indians
for example rich land owners and princes this was because they wanted to be able
to keep their land that they have accumulated through the British rules and still
have influences within the politics. Another supporter of rebellion was parts
of army they supported the rebellion due to various reasons such as their
religious beliefs (Robinson, 1857)stated within a
letter which was wrote by Francis Horsby Robinson in 1857, this letter stated
that many people within the army who were Hindus were stopped from ‘honouring
the colours with incense and garlands’ this implies they were stopped from
undertaking there religious worshipping.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Tapan Raychaudhuri had a negative
view of the rebellion we can tell this is because he expresses that the whole
population was nationalistic and that the British bayed for bloody revenge we
know this because the British used cow and pig bones/fat within their guns which
was against the religion of many soldiers with the East Indian Company’s army
which left the many soldiers disgruntled. Another reason we can tell that his
view of the rebellion was negative is because he said “the rebellion created a
legacy of racial hatred” which resulted in the Indians and British being
separated however we know this is not true because the majority of Indian
wasn’t affected by this as previously stated many Indians actually supported
the British.

This extract tells me that the
rebellion was a bad thing which everyone was involved in and that it caused a
lot of hatred and separation between the Indians and the British. The points
stated above show evidence that religion was a main factor in why the Indians
and British mutinied.

Extract 2 was written by an English
historian and teacher called D.C. Somervell who taught in three well know
English public schools, the attract was adapted from the ‘The British Empire’
which was written by D.C. Somervell in 1934 but was originally published in
1930. The school of thought of this extract is structuralism which means D.C.
Somervell is discussing his view of the of the empire from ‘bottom up’ and his
view of the structure between the colonies and metropole (top of the empire,
the connecting point is London). This extract is also a whigish interpretation which
is an interpretation that presents the past as an inevitable progression
towards ever greater liberal and enlighten cumulating in modern forms of
liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy. This extract also has a
Eurocentric point of view which is very British and wants the whole world to be
British.

The point of this extract is to explain
the attitudes towards the British empire and portrays a positive view of the
attitude because it shows aspects that the empire was a good thing. One reason
we can tell this is a positive point of view as D.C. Somervell states ‘about a
fifth of them owe their existence to British rule’ this is implying that a
fifth of Western Europe is here today because of what the British empire
accomplished, we know this is true because Britain began trading between these
countries which enabled them to be introduced to enterprise.  Another reason we know D.C. Somervell had a
positive view of the British empire as he said, “the British in Indian have
exercised so profound an influence on the country that is hard to realise the
smallness of their numbers” which suggests that he believes that the British
empire managed to help India to improve, we know the British empire helped
India to improve as they provided them with new technology and made
improvements to the conditions of the human rights in India.

However D.C. Somervell wrote ‘India
is anything but a White Man’s home’ stating that once a white man has fulfilled
his duties over in India they would return home we know that this information
is incorrect because some British settled in India we know this because as
mentioned previously the British that did live in India had a great influence
on improving India.

This extract tells me that the
British empire had a positive influence on India and many Western European
countries and the points stated about support this because they helped to
improve India and Western Europe by introducing new laws, technology and
trading resulting in the countries being able to expand their population.

In my opinion both extracts show
evidence of factual and incorrect information on the British rule in the Empire
from 1857-1890 and neither one of the extracts are more convincing in relation
to the British rule in the empire because they both written sometime after the
event so this means the extracts are based on researcher and the writer’s
opinion which has resulted in them getting some of the evidence and information
wrong. However, I do believe each writer shows and some good information to
support the opinion of the British rule in the Empire they have written about.

There are various reasons why
Britain had/wanted an empire such as: (Yousaf, 2014)power because Britain wanted to be able
to have power over the whole of the world and by having and empire it meant
that Britain was able to have everything they wanted even creating their own
rights, military as the empire was growing rapidly they need more men to fight
for them but this would cost too much which would get in the way of them
capturing more land so they decided to capture slaves and get them to fight,
economy as have a great economy helped as Britain was able to create trading
routes that no other countries had access to and finally financial reasons
which was the main reason why everyone wanted an empire as it could enable you
to take over and take control of things which is what Britain wanted to do.

Thomas Babington Macaulay
(1800-1859) who was a poet wrote a speech on the India bill of 1833 and
expresses his view of the achievements and goals of the British Empire in the
East. Macaulay’s speech supports the British empire by giving a positive view
of the Indians, recognising the abuse of power, recognising how the governing
of India benefits the British and mentioning about spreading civilisation,
trade with civilised men and education. Some evidence of this from Macaulay’s
speech is that he said, “to the great trading nation, to the great
manufacturing nation” which shows the supportive factors of the British empire
because Britain introduced trading which then enabled countries to be able to manufacture
better things in a bigger quantity as they were getting sold. He also mentions
about how spreading of the European civilisation and how that the govern of
India was better for Britain in his words he said, “far better for us that the
people of India were well governed and independent of us”. On the other hand,
Thomas Babington Macaulay’s speech criticises the British Empire as he mentions
about how lots of people died, refers to the Indians as savages, is predicting
arguments and is demeaning. We know this because he said, “ruling savages would
indeed be a foolish wisdom” this implies that if Britain was to try and rule
India it would be a foolish mistake which inevitable cost them a great amount
of money and he also states.

Overall Thomas Babington Macaulay’s
speech in my opinion supports the British empire more than it criticises it as
he was able identify the positives that the British empire had on India and education,
but he was also able to identify and explain what the British Empire was doing
wrong.