British Rule in India to the French One in Algeria Essay

Critically Compare the British loom in India to the cut one in Algeria. Throughout the nineteenth century, the rivalling countries of Britain and France were both expression to expand into different continents and build a successful empire. There are more reasons for this thirst for expansion, including economic growth and territorial reserve gains. According to Gildea the emergence of non-European countries such(prenominal)(prenominal) as United States and Japan as keen powers fuelled the nationalistic appetite for the extension of borders and influence. The British rule in India later coined the British Raj, began in 1858 and although coming under most(prenominal) strain in periods throughout, lasted until 1947 when they were final examinationly presumption their independence. The cut rule in Algeria spanned from 1830 to 1962 future(a) the conclusion of the Algerian War and the sign of the Evian agreements. It is class when examining both the rules of Great Brita in in India and France in Algeria that thither were significant differences in the ways the two countries were ran.The french utilise forces might to control the universe and quell any uprisings one brand of such revolts was Abd al-Kader. These heavy handed t bearical maneuver seemed to be less successful when compared to how the British reacted to Indian violence. Great Britain decided to award concessions when faced by fierce rivalry limiting the amount turmoil and inbredly making it easier to diplomatically push westward ideas upon them. Frances colonisation of Algeria was not the source time that they had tried to expand their borders and fence on a world gift with the new(prenominal) world powers, incircumstance before face to Africa France had the snatch largest empire in the world, second only to Great Britain. In 1605 France had secured a territory in what is now Nova Scotia in Canada.Throughout the 17th century they had been extremely successful in adding much of the compass north American continent, alike the West Indies. yet after a string of conflicts such the Seven Years War (1756-1763) and the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) the other world powers had been successful in annexing these territories from France. The end of what has been labelled the First cut Empire was now coming to an end. In 1830 during a meeting between the French ambassador and the Algerian Dey regarding loans and trade the Dey laid low(p) the French ambassador with a rainfly whip. This act is said to be the final trigger ca pulmonary tuberculosis which lead to the French line of reasoning. However it is a wider known fact that there was a distinct all overlook of political support for the new monarchy and this act of war would help stir up national pride and increase confidence.Whilst visual aspect on the front of it a junior reason for declaring war on a country and occupying it for 132 years, there are other motives behind the bold political conclus iveness to initiate a Second French Empire. Algeria was seen to be of high strategic significance as it declare oneselfed a jumping-off place into the rest of Africa, including such nations as Tunisia, Libya and Niger. Gildea agrees with this blood line noting Algeria, which it France occupied in 1830, was the cornerstone of her Mediterranean and African ambitions. Therefore, by occupying Algeria and furthermore congou tea and Niger in 1880 they had secured themselves once more as a successful Empire confident of competing in the world stage.In 1869 the Suez channel was officially opened for traffic, this narrow faux pas of water dissecting what is now Saudi Arabia on one side and Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia, offered a importantly faster shipping route into the East. It in any case eradicated the need for trading ships to visit the perilous coastline of Cape Horn in conspiracy Africa where piracy was rife. This vital water personation was also utilised by the Briti sh in order to transport true to India. The East India Trading connection was founded in 1600 with the purpose of travelling to Asia in lookup of previously unsourced trading links. They operated under the potence of the British crown and even controlled a military violence. They were responsible for directly stressful to impose westerly beliefs and cultures on India much too soon in the occupation and too forcefully.This lead to a more often than not hostile reception and in 1857 there was a large scale rebellion. The British had been unearthlyly insensitive towards both the Hindoo and Muslim populations. The British had recognized new powder cartridges which were believed to be greased using scare or pig fat. This practice would declare been unacceptable by both the Hindi and Muslim sepoys, however it wasnt simply the Bengal Army who wished to be rid of the British the Indian aristocracy had lost wide amounts of power and influence. Officials such as Sir doubting Th omas Munro could see little use in a parasitic prop owning class commenting on how preferential methods of brass section would be village communities as it fitted interrupt with the europeanized and more efficient type of garbage disposal that had been built up during the nineteenth century The British leant many lessons from the 1857 Rebellion, and as later on the British Raj was created. This is a far more sympathetic approach to ruling over India.No longer did the British governing and the East India Trading Company underreckoning the need to be culturally aware. This issue of religion and culture provides a bankers bill between the British methods in the India and the French methods in Algeria. In comparison the French continually utilise military force to repress uprisings. Abd al-Kader, as previously mentioned was an brand of such uprisings, however after the French Army swelled in sizing it became possible for them to employ scorched-earth play, ferociously supressi ng the local anaesthetic population, consequently al-Kader was forced to surrender in 1847 . In the late 19th hundred France began emigrating large numbers of Europeans into Algeria, By 1881 there were 300,000 Europeans (Half of them French) in an area of 2.5 million Arabs.another(prenominal) example of France trying to reduce Muslim culture comes from after the Second homo War.Charles de Gaulle the leader of the French provisional government activity offered to grant French citizenship to certain Algerian Muslims, however in doing so they would essential renounce their faith and religion. In India Britain used a divide and rule indemnity in order to retain peace. Akhtar Sandhu suggests the British adopted the constitution to maintain harmony and peace. They valued unity and tranquillity in the British India. These are the act of a conqueror who decides to stay and rule. It is clear that the British way of integrating Western culture within Indian confederacy was more success ful than the equivalent suffice involving the French in Algeria. This can be seen from the fact that within the f number classes of Indian society a new elite group was being born.These people had respected professions, such as lawyers, doctors, teachers, journalists and businessmen, they had established a Western life-style using the side language and English schools Outside the upper class Great Britain had introduced Western applied science to help improve the livelihood of the population. The macrocosm of railways and the improvement of irrigation methods had improved both industrial and agricultural efficiency. In Algeria the French also brought about Western civilisation to some extent, creating schools and building cities as well as constructing hospitals, however they spent 162 years with most constant violence.Their eagerness to us military force to resolve issues lead to indignation from many Algerian nationals. In Conclusion, there were a number of similarities when looking at the resistance of the colonial occupation in both Algeria and India, however what differed is the reactions of the occupying countrys and how they learnt from their mistakes. The British at first tried to force Western ideals against the Hindu and Muslim Indians. However they quickly learnt that countering their revolts with over self-assertive military action was counter-intuitive to their cause.Instead they began to offer concessions in order to appease the nationals. The policy of divide and rule ensured there would be minimal friction between the multiplicities of religious beliefs. In contrast the French confronted flushed upheaval with similarly vicious tactics such as the policy of scorched-earth quite of pacifying the African ideals. However, both the French and British Empires did to differing extents manage to integrate Western technologies such as railways and modern irrigation methods. In assenting both occupations were valuable building blocks in which t o expand their empires France into Africa and Great Britain into Asia.Bibliography-Carter., M, From the East India Company to the Suez Canal, (Duke, 2004), pp. 667-668 -French Colonial Empires, http//www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/frenchempire.html, (Accessed 10th January 2012) -Gildea., R, Barricades and Borders Europe 1800 1914, terce Edition (Oxford, 2003) pp. 337 -Gildea., R, Barricade and Borders Europe 1800-1914, one-third Edition, (Oxford, 2003), pp. 338 -Jones., J, Algerian Independence, http//courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his312/lectures/algeria.htm, (accessed 8th January 2012) -Pritchard., J.S, In look to of Empire the French in the Americas, 1670-1730, (Cambridge, 2004) Sandhu., A.H world of Divide and Rule in British India, Pakistan Journal of archives and Culture, Vol.XXX, No.1, 2009 -Thompson, E and Garratt., E.T, History of British rule in India, plenty 2, (Cambridge,1999), pp. 426 -Tanford., L.S, Countries and their Culture Algeria, http//www.everycultur e.com/A-Bo/Algeria.htmlb, (accessed 14th January 2012)