ANTI-IMPERIALIST ARMED STRUGGLE strengthened, and the prospects of redressal brightened up. The feeling of frustration among the masses seems to have gone down by some degrees, and so did the intensity of desperation among many of them, and the urgency for leading them to take to arms as the last bid. Whatever be the strengths and the weaknesses of a liberal democratic system vis-a-vis a people/peoples, it could not have been introduced in substance to all such territories which had somehow been conquered by others. Such introduction would simply have been self-defeating for the conquerors who could maximise reaping the benefits of their conquests only by completely subjugating the conquered, and very obviously by conceding as little constitutional advantages to the subjugated as possible. Liberal democracy and imperialism being the products of the same modern age, under the similar bourgeoised social formation, and moulded by the identical Western world-view, an anomalous situation developed in the subjugated sector where the imperialists must deny its inhabitants precisely those rights and advantages which they themselves had to grant to the people in their own countries. However much the high and the low of the imperial countries like Britain, France and Germany were led to overlook this anomaly in the belief of their sharing, even if it trickles, the imperialist gains from the subjugated economies, the conquered people were bound, sooner or later, to discover it, resent it in view of their utter imperial subjection, and fight for getting over it, till they were able to free themselves from their tormentors' clutches. The fight against the unrelenting imperialist rule was likely, therefore, to begin on the line of certain kinds of armed resistance, or through some use of counter-physical force, as it seemed to have notably taken place in India under the British. The British imperialist rule over India, whether it was vastly superior administratively to the preceding indigenous governments, or only marginally so, had in reality been as tyrannical as any of the previous despotic and oligarchic regimes. Despite the Raj's (the East India Company's, as well as the British monarch's) being responsible theoretically, and very nominally in practice, to the control of the British Parliament, it was for all practical purposes reduced to the personal rule of the governors general and governors, assisted by their respective councils, propped up by the British-dominated armies and civil services, and upheld—following the initial jurisdictional squabbles—by a placating judiciary. The great distance between the British Isles and the Indian dominions, the challenging problem of transport and communication, and the British public's appalling