A* History Essay Question Exemplar

`British rule in India combined self-interest with an arrogant attitude of racial superiority towards the ; ;

native population` Assess the validity of this view with reference to the years 1857 to 1900 ;

 ;

Agree- valid interpretation- British self-interest and self-proclaimed racial superiority played a role

 ;

Timed- 40 minutes ;

 ;

After the 1857 Indian Mutiny, British rule undoubtedly acknowledged the need for reforms to maintain control of the `Jewel in the Crown` with improvements made in infrastructure and education. Such reforms were to an extent beneficial to India but primarily served to protect British hegemony and to promote self-interest. ;Cultural traditions were better observed and respected by the British government but attitudes of racial superiority persisted. ;So, while there were attempts at reforms to benefit the Indian population, British rule in India was largely characterised by self-interest and notions of racial superiority. ;

 ;

British attitudes of racial superiority and self-interest were most immediately evident in the administration and governance of India. For instance, the Viceroy held the most senior position of government in India and was always of British origin, with control over foreign and military affairs. The fact that the Viceroy was never Indian is indicative of the British notion that the indigenous peoples had an inability to govern themselves. Further to this, the highest positions in government and the civil service was limited to a white, public-school educated British elite. Whilst the Civil Service did accept Indian applicants after 1958, they only made up 5% of the civil service by 1900. Thus, the belief that British rule and administration was more efficient was maintained throughout the period. ; ;

However, there was some evidence that British rule was not solely characterised by self-interest and an attitude of racial superiority as the British allowed for ;a degree of self-governance. ;565 Princely States were governed by Indian princes and the previously controversial doctrine of lapse as introduced by Dalhousie in the 1830`s, which meant that these states would be annexed if there were no more legitimate heirs to the throne, was ended in 1858. On the surface, it appears as though British ideas of racial superiority and their own self-interest were suspended in this case but British reliance on indirect rule through local rulers was a strategic decision that allowed the British to run an `Empire on the cheap`. After all, the rulers of Princely states were given civil service advisors and ultimately were loyal to British rule so this allowed the British government to maintain informal control without the extensive costs of administration. Ultimately, this seeming concession was still to serve British interests. Therefore, the view that British rule in India was characterised by self-interest and ideas of racial superiority holds significant validity. ;

 ;

While there is overwhelming evidence to suggest self-interest and self-proclaimed racial superiority ; played a major role in British administration, when considering their rule on the ground there is evidence of a degree of beneficence in British government rule. For instance, reforms were made in infrastructure, which improved the lives of Indians. Britain laid down 20,000 miles of railway track by 1900, which aided development as food could be transported more easily across India and increased job opportunities for labourers to build this railway. However, this was also a strategic move to promote British self-interest in India as the transport of troops could be expedited and more quickly put down any uprisings throughout the subcontinent. Thus, even `benevolent` reforms that improved the lives of Indians had self-interest and the maintenance of control in mind. ; ;

A stronger case could be made for reforms in education in India showing a degree of benevolence rather than purely self-interested rule. For example, by 1901 there were 191 professional and arts colleges in India and the English language was taught within the education system. This facilitated the involvement of Indians in the Civil Service and government as it meant educated Indians could pass examinations to earn roles in the Civil Service. However, this was also a move couched in self-interest as the promotion of the English language and the gaining of professional roles within the education system served to promote the cohesion and efficient governance of India. Furthermore, even educated Indians could not gain positions of seniority in the Civil Service, demonstrating that British rule and administration was still seen as the efficient and better option, in light of attitudes of racial superiority. Consequently, while there was a degree of improvements and reforms made for the benefit of the Indian population, these ultimately still served British self-interest and showed beliefs of racial superiority. ;

In conclusion, British self-interest and attitudes of racial superiority undoubtedly played a major role in British rule from 1857 to 1900. There was some evidence such as reforms made in education and infrastructure that demonstrated a degree of concern for the Indian population and were formulated to benefit them. Additionally, there is some evidence of limited self-government within the subcontinent. However, these reforms and concessions were ultimately strategic and served to protect British rule and economic interest in India and still maintained ideas of racial superiority that deemed Indians were too `incompetent` to govern themselves. ;