The British rule in India caused the Indians to unite and create a more nationalistic pride and self-reliance, thus the rule of the British was, in a sense, necessary. Agree or Disagree? Explain your opinion.

Moderately Agree that it enhanced unity, national price, self reliance. But don't agree that it was 'necessary'

Explanation:

Britishers ruled India from around late 1750s to 1947. India's freedom from exploitative colonial rule was remarkable. The freedom struggle & fight ignited a sense of national unity, national pride - irrespective of caste, creed, community, gender, class. A sense self reliance & urge for freedom was unitedly looked upon, as evident from movements like 'quit india' 'swadeshi'.

However, their rule by divide & rule policy also created many communal rifts. Also, such immensely exploitative rule, which by chance had a positive side effect of unity among adversity - cant be called 'necessary' (it would be unjustified to call it that). Unity & national pride could be achieved by some progressive means also.

hola,

i hate my life too. (like jayfeather hates his blindness x3)

the national congress's powers over the states were specific and definite: it had the sole power to negotiate treaties, declare war, and make peace. all powers not granted to congress were reserved for state governments. congress had no power to levy taxes, for example.