Do you agree with the view that in the years before the First World War, there was willing and widespread Indian cooperation to British rule?
by
selinal963 (student)
History Key Assignment Cover Sheet
Do you agree with the view that in the years before the First World War, there was willing and widespread Indian cooperation to British rule?
It can be argued that in the years before the First World War, there was willing and widespread cooperation from the Indians to British rule. Even though there was a lot of dispute between the Indians about the partition of Bengal, many Indians stayed loyal and cooperated with British rule and their ideals; source 1 certainly argues with this. However sources 2 and 3 present that fact that there was some cooperation but not entirely; it was up to the Indians whether they cooperated with British rule or not.
From source 1 you can see that they argue with the statement that there was willing and widespread Indian cooperation to British rule. Source 1 was written by the historian Stanley Wolpert about 20 years after the end of British rule in India. It says that “anti-partition passions grew bolder”[1], which shows that there wasn’t much cooperation with the British as the partition was set up by the British viceroy, Lord Cruzon. Also the sale of Indian made goods rose, “swadeshi sales boomed in the wake of the boycott”[2] showing that Indians didn’t want anything to do with Britain not even their goods. Not only did support for anti-partition grow but the British tried to break up the movement by imprisoning the leaders of the movement and by preventing student from protesting “the government tried to crack the movement with wholesale criminal prosecution against it’s most outspoken advocates”[3], “to prevent students from playing an active ‘role in politics’”[4]. But you could argue that their was Indian cooperation as they didn’t retaliate to what the British were doing to them, this in turn would question the reliability of the source as it doesn’t really mention how the Indians acted, leaving you to interpret the British as brutal and violent. Later on the source indicates that “university students were harassed, persecuted and oppressed while those at lower levels were flogged, fined or expelled”[5], suggesting that Wolpert argues that all students were attacked in some way; “nationalist marchers were attacked by police”[6] showing that the British intended to stop the protest anyway they could. The fact that the source doesn’t tell us much of what the Indians did against the British, makes the source not very helpful to answering the question but tells us context of what occurred at that time; presenting less weight to the evidence that India did or didn’t cooperate to British rule.
