Lalvani says that Indians were educated in Britain, and this is true. Yet, according to the statistics in document 5, the percentage of illiteracy in India was still a staggering 84 percent when the British left. Britain only educated handpicked, elite Indians, localizing the knowledge in a select few, which made sure the majority of residents in India were unable to learn. Throughout British rule, heath and life expectancy were both improved dramatically (Lalvani). However, British rule also left 58 million dead bodies in its wake (Doc. #7). India lost many residents to the British, and no matter how many years are added on to someone’s life, it can’t make up for the massive amounts of death. So, yes, the British did bring longer, healthier lives and education, but only to a select few, and at the cost of millions of lives …show more content…
Dr. Lalvani painted the British into a picture of a productive government that introduced India to modern life through infrastructure, medicine, and education. There’s a dark side to this neat, pretty story, starting with the lack of control over leadership the Indians were granted. This led to forced cash crop growth and purchase of cheap fabric, which devastated the economy and caused millions of deaths from preventable famines. Britain brought many changes to India, some beneficial, but to overlook the overwhelming amount of negative impacts from British Imperialism is to undermine the massive struggle the Indian people went through, and are still experiencing, to an extent, today as a result of an inequitable British