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.

louverture's prominent role in the haitian success over colonialism and slavery had earned him the admiration of friends and detractors alike.

explanation:

toussaint louverture began his military career as a leader of the 1791 slave rebellion in saint-domingue; he was by then a free man and a jacobin.

d

step-by-step explanation:

look at the x and y axis