Imperialism in Asia: British India, China's Opium Wars and Meiji Japan
Grade 10 Social Studies Worksheet

Circle the best answer.
Read this first
Use this
Cards A to D. Card A, a summary in our words, written today, from the UK Parliament's Living Heritage site: A charter of 1813 asserted the Crown's sovereignty over the East India Company's territories in India. Card B, a summary in our words, written today, from the same site: In 1857 Indians rose in revolt against what the site calls high-handed and oppressive Company rule, especially its insensitivity toward their religions. Hindu and Muslim soldiers objected to cartridges rumored to be greased with fat from animals that were forbidden or sacred in their religions. Card C, a summary in our words, written today, from the same site: The Company's army regained control with what the site calls excessively brutal action. Card D, a summary in our words, written today, from the same site: The Government of India Act of 1858 ended Company rule. The Crown took over the Company's possessions and armed forces under a Secretary of State for India and a viceroy.
Card B names the cartridge rumor and insensitivity toward religion. Ari calls the rumor the cause of the revolt. What do the cards support?
- The rumor was a spark within a wider oppressive rule that card B names as the grievance
- The rumor was unimportant, since a rumor is a belief and not an event with real effects
- Religion was a pretext, since the revolt was really about the cartridges and a rumor of grease
- The rumor was the sole cause, since card B names it as the reason Hindu and Muslim soldiers objected
Card B says the cartridges were "rumored" to be greased with fat. Bo asks whether it matters that this was a rumor.
- No, since a false rumor cannot cause an event and a cause has to be an established fact
- No, since the rumor was true, because card B names the animals whose fat was involved
- Yes: soldiers acted on the belief, so it can matter whether or not the greasing is proved
- Yes, since a rumor shows the soldiers were lying about their grievance to justify a revolt
Card C reports that the Company's army regained control with "excessively brutal action," on Parliament's own site. Jun asks what the wording shows.
- A British government source now says the response went too far; it gives no detail or numbers
- The scale of the losses, since the word excessive means that very large numbers were affected
- Nothing, since a word chosen today is an opinion and cannot report what happened in 1857
- That Parliament approved the action, since the site is Parliament's own and speaks for it
Card B calls Company rule "high-handed and oppressive." Kira says a British site must be biased toward Indians. What is the sound reply?
- The claim is right, since a source that criticizes Britain's own rule has to be taking a side
- The claim cannot be tested, since a modern site is shaped by the present and cannot be compared
- The claim is wrong, since a Parliament site is neutral about the empire's history and its wars
- The site criticizes Company rule, so it is not simply pro-British; fairness needs other sources
Luz wants Indian voices on the revolt of 1857. Which source would add them?
- Reports written by Company army officers in 1857, since officers saw the revolt up close
- A modern textbook summary of the revolt, since it collects what many Indians said at the time
- Letters or proclamations written by Indian soldiers or leaders in 1857, since they speak for themselves
- The Government of India Act of 1858, since it responded directly to the revolt by Indian soldiers
Card D: the Crown took over under a Secretary of State and a viceroy. Milo says India was now ruled by Indians. What does the card show?
- Indians ruled, since the Crown replaced the company against which Indians had risen in revolt
- Nothing changed, since the Company's possessions and army were simply renamed Crown property
- Rule passed from a company to the Crown under British officials; the card names no Indian share
- The Company ruled beside the Crown, since the Company's army was kept under its old officers
Card A says the Crown asserted sovereignty over Company territories in 1813; card D says the Crown took over in 1858. Noah says nothing changed in 1858. What fits?
- Sovereignty dated from 1813, but in 1858 the Crown took direct control of possessions and army
- Nothing changed, since the Crown was already sovereign and the Company was just its agent in India
- The Crown took over in 1813 and in 1858 changed titles alone, since sovereignty was settled first
- Everything changed, since the Crown held no authority in India before the Act of 1858 and the revolt
Ren says the revolt of 1857 was mainly a religious conflict between Hindus and Muslims. What does card B suggest?
- The claim is wrong, since the revolt had no connection to religion and was about pay and rank
- The claim is right, since religion is named in card B as the center of the grievance and the revolt
- The claim cannot be tested, since card B does not count the soldiers of each religion who rose
- Hindu and Muslim soldiers both objected to the cartridges, which points away from that claim
Tala says Company rule ended because it was brutal. What do cards C and D support?
- Brutality ended the Company's army, since card D says the Crown took over its armed forces in 1858
- The claim is right, since card C reports brutality and card D reports the end of the Company
- Brutal action regained control in 1857 and the Act ended Company rule in 1858, unlinked in the cards
- The claim is wrong, since the Company's army won the revolt and winning rules out later blame
Zee wants to test whether the revolt caused the Act of 1858. Which added source would help most?
- Parliamentary debates of 1858 in which members stated why the Act was passed and what moved them
- The date of the first railway line in India, since railways changed how the country was ruled
- Company army records of 1857, since they show how large the revolt was and where it spread
- The charter of 1813, since it shows what the Crown claimed in India long before the revolt