No. The first of the European powers to exercise authority over Sri Lanks was Portugal, in the early 1500s, soon followed by the Dutch who in turn were replaced by the British in 1802, when Ceylon was declared a British Colony.
It was NOT part of the British Raj. But like mainland India, it had earlier been a group of individual feudal kingdoms.
This unhappy state of affairs continued till the 1930s when rising demands for 'home rule' resulted in the appointment of a Prime Minister in advance of the independence in 1948.
This country has always been an important centre for Buddhism, and only very recently has the Tamil minority been merged with Sri Lanka proper.
Munich ConferenceMunich Conference
The British sought to take over the Rani of Jhansi kingdom primarily for strategic and economic reasons. The region was crucial for its resources and location, which could enhance British control over central India. Additionally, the British aimed to consolidate their power following the doctrine of lapse, which allowed them to annex territories of rulers who died without a male heir. The Rani, Lakshmibai, resisted British annexation, becoming a symbol of resistance during the Indian Rebellion of 1857.
The doctrine of lapse was a policy implemented by the British East India Company in the 19th century, primarily under Governor-General Lord Dalhousie. It stated that if a ruler of a princely state died without a biological heir, the British would annex the territory rather than allow it to pass to an adopted heir. This policy aimed to consolidate British control over India by absorbing more territories. It sparked significant resentment among Indian rulers and contributed to the growing discontent that led to the Revolt of 1857.
The British had already planned to annex lands of the subcontinent; the lands and territorries by using the EIC (East India Company) as their stronghold. Britain had recently gone through the industrial revolution *Search it up if you don't know what that was* and had advanced into much modern and lethal weaponry and technology than the Indians. Their soldiers were much more discliplined and organised (they had worked out their military startegies and formations) and could win battles by using their HEAD e.g Battle if Buxar, Battle of Plassey etc. As i just told you; the bristish already planned to annex lands......Charles Napier *search him up* is a clear example of how the British caught hold of territories like Sindh, Balochistan, and Punjab in 1809. He provoked the Amirs of Sindh to react to their rule, and so the British had an excuse to annex.
The result of the Munich Conference on the brink of WW2 was that British and French leaders chose appeasement and allowed Hitler to annex territory.
German police found Anne and her family in the Secert Annex along with several others.
It was a Shameful British act because the British broke the treaty of friendship with Sindh and annex it. by M.H.KHAN.
Diamonds
Diamonds Diamonds
Diamonds Diamonds
In an Annex... Miep Gies helped her and her family along with her husband Henk.
western germany along the french border, it was called the "Rhineland"
Munich ConferenceMunich Conference
it will came under French or British rule
"Annex" is the singular form. The plural form would be "annexes".
The residents of the annex, including Anne Frank, feared that if the British invaded Amsterdam, there could be increased danger and uncertainty for them as Jews living in hiding. They were already vulnerable to Nazi persecution and an invasion could disrupt their careful hiding arrangements.
"annex" is the correct spelling