2 ms·
There is a theory I have heard that, British cannot have held rule over India, without the implicit consent of Indian populace.British rule was not a military o
by billfruit 9y ago
There is a theory I have heard that, British cannot have held rule over India, without the implicit consent of Indian populace.British rule was not a military occupation. British military presence was miniscule compared to the vastness of the geography and population of the country. So the British were able to do rule India, because Indians implicitly allowed them to. Sections of of the Indian population, were complicit in the establishment and continuation of British rule.
- vijayr 9y agoIndia was a collection of many many smaller kingdoms when the British came to the scene. There was a whole bunch of infighting and backstabbing going on which the British happily encouraged and exploited. It is definitely amazing that they could do what they did, considering the sheer size of the country.
- nashashmi 9y agoSpot on. And also to mention, in that struggle they created and brokered alliances and established themselves as the supreme power. That was their biggest contribution to the whole of India. This is not the first time it has happened. During the medieval period, and battle of fiefdoms, decentralized powers grew into one consolidated power. India was going through the same phase at the time and British, having a leg up on power consolidation, brought what they knew and profited from it.