3 ms·
> India was quite divided before that, which made it easy for them to play their little game of "divide and rule". The fact that entire region was called Bhara
by drieddust 8y ago
> India was quite divided before that, which made it easy for them to play their little game of "divide and rule".
The fact that entire region was called Bharat escapes you I think.
Just before British India was centrally organized and ruled by Mughals and Marathas so your argument does not stand.
As far as "divide and rule" is concerned, due to the vastness of India regional leadership was always delegated. British utilized this structure to their advantage.
- sachdevap 8y agoLinking to my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18685130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18685130 Delegation is not the same as "divide and rule". There was active animosity amongst these provinces. The British played Bengal and Punjab against each other, for example. The Marathas did resist the British in their own strongholds, but they never centrally ruled an undivided India. It was a big empire nonetheless.
- gumby 8y ago> The fact that entire region was called Bharat... I don't think that important fact inherently implies a unity that was never there. The(roughly defined) region called "Europe" has never been under the control of a unitary state or empire, even in the times of the Romans.
- drieddust 8y agoEurope is a continent and not a country and Romans did rule almost entire continent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#/media/File:Roman_Empire_Trajan_117AD.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#/media/File:Roman...