Why did the educated elites criticise the policy of Indirect Rule?

Why the Educated Elites Criticised the Policy of Indirect Rule

Indirect rule governed the people through traditional rulers under British supervision. The Western-educated elites strongly opposed it for the following reasons:

1. Exclusion of the educated class: Indirect rule relied on traditional rulers and largely shut out the educated Africans from participating in the administration of their own country, denying them positions they felt qualified to hold.
2. It strengthened conservatism and blocked progress: By propping up traditional rulers and native customs, the system preserved outdated practices and hindered the political, social and educational modernisation the elites wanted.
3. It gave excessive powers to traditional rulers: The elites felt that the chiefs and emirs were made too powerful and often autocratic, and that some abused their authority under British protection.
4. It delayed self-government and democracy: The system entrenched autocratic native rule instead of preparing the people for representative and democratic government.
5. It was a tool of exploitation: The elites saw indirect rule as a cheap device for perpetuating colonial exploitation and domination while pretending to respect African institutions.
6. Corruption and inefficiency of Native Authorities: The native courts and treasuries were often corrupt, oppressive and inefficient, and the elites resented this.
7. It divided the people: By emphasising ethnic and traditional structures, the policy discouraged national unity and a common Nigerian identity.
8. It was applied where unsuitable: The system, which suited the centralised North, was forced on societies (such as the Igbo) that had no chiefs, leading to the imposition of warrant chiefs and resentment.

(Any relevant points are acceptable.)