Why might the way the British filled the Indian seats on advisory councils be seen as clever political manoeuvres ?

The British filling the Indian seats on advisory councils in a strategic manner could be seen as clever political manoeuvres for several reasons:

1. Divide and rule: By carefully selecting individuals from different regions, religions, and castes, the British could create divisions within the Indian population and prevent them from uniting against colonial rule.

2. Co-opting Indian elites: By appointing influential Indian leaders to advisory councils, the British could co-opt them into the colonial administration and gain their support for their policies, thereby weakening potential opposition.

3. Maintaining control: By controlling the selection process for Indian seats on advisory councils, the British could ensure that only individuals who were loyal to the colonial government were appointed, thereby maintaining their grip on power.

4. Appearing inclusive: By including Indian representatives on advisory councils, the British could create the appearance of inclusivity and consultation, while still retaining ultimate decision-making power.

Overall, the strategic selection of Indian representatives on advisory councils allowed the British to maintain control, co-opt Indian elites, and prevent unity among the Indian population, making it a clever political manoeuvre in the context of colonial rule.

The British filled the Indian seats on advisory councils through indirect elections or appointments. This was a clever political manoeuvre for several reasons:

1. Control and Influence: By controlling the selection process, the British could ensure that the councils were filled with individuals who were loyal to them or at least supportive of their policies. This gave the British significant influence over the councils' deliberations and decisions.

2. Divide and Rule: The indirect election system allowed the British to divide the Indian population along communal lines. By giving different communities reserved seats, they sowed discord and prevented the formation of a united Indian front against British rule.

3. Representation of Elite: The councils mostly consisted of members from the Indian elite, such as landlords, merchants, and professionals. This limited the representation of the masses and ensured that the councils' decisions reflected the interests of the upper classes. By co-opting the elite, the British created a buffer between themselves and the wider Indian population.

4. Safety Valve: The advisory councils provided a controlled outlet for Indian grievances and aspirations. By allowing Indians to participate in the governing process in a limited capacity, the British could defuse potential unrest and create the illusion of self-governance.

5. Divide and Pacify: The councils were often ineffective in bringing about meaningful change due to their limited powers and the British' veto power. However, they provided a platform for Indian leaders to voice their concerns and debate issues, which could have a pacifying effect on the population.

6. Justification for Rule: The presence of Indian representatives on the councils allowed the British to claim that they were governing India with the consent of the governed. This helped to legitimize their rule and counter arguments for self-determination.