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.

the correct answer is d

the answer is to stop cheating on plato