Why was India so easily conquered by the British?

[Stefan_Dusan]

When the Indian population is so huge? Much larger than the British population.

There is historic precedent, the British tried to control all of "India", but the northwest gave them continuous trouble, constant rebellions. So they decided this quadrant was not worth it, they decided to draw a border, called Durand line, and that line is today the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Everything south of this line was "India" (even Pakistan at the time) and was for most part easily controlled by the British. Why did this small quadrant with much less people prove to be uncontrollable?

Could this be tied to Hinduism and how it's one of the most passive religions in the world. They don't even eat meat.

[Pjeter Pan]

Because I wasnt there to rule them

[Skipetar]

Cause Indians just like to stare


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D9n00_hq8

[Stefan_Dusan]

Cause Indians just like to stare


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D9n00_hq8

Indian society is very judgmental society and very conservative society but for some reason very passive society. I'm curious why.

[zhaoyun]

There was not an "India" to begin with. There were different states of varying sizes and the British were successful in playing one against another. Also, Indian society itself is deeply divided, and many of those who were peasants or the underclass were hardly politically conscious or active to play any type of defining role of resistance against colonialism, nor was British rule so overbearing that the masses felt an urgent call for anti-colonialism.

[Unome]

Because the Brits had so much practice beforehand.

The British essentially conquered most of the world through monopolizing the sea, sending troops anywhere across the oceans.

Nobody else was able to do this by comparison. The only real challenge to British (and US) naval supremacy was Japanese navy and German submarines in WWII.

[Dombra]

While Afghans were proud Iranics the rest of India was ineffective due to their Australid admixture

[Stefan_Dusan]

Because the Brits had so much practice beforehand.

The British essentially conquered most of the world through monopolizing the sea, sending troops anywhere across the oceans.

Nobody else was able to do this by comparison. The only real challenge to British (and US) naval supremacy was Japanese navy and German submarines in WWII.

No this is wrong. The British couldn't conquer Afghanistan (30 million people today) but could conquer India + Pakistan + Bangledesh (1.7 billion today)?

The only difference was the Afghanis rebelled, and the Indians never really did. If even 1% of Indian population rebelled Britian would have been driven out.

[Stefan_Dusan]

There was not an "India" to begin with. There were different states of varying sizes and the British were successful in playing one against another. Also, Indian society itself is deeply divided, and many of those who were peasants or the underclass were hardly politically conscious or active to play any type of defining role of resistance against colonialism, nor was British rule so overbearing that the masses felt an urgent call for anti-colonialism.

You can say something about Afghanistan. Afghanistan today is brutally divided into many tribes, languages, Pashtuns are not the only players there. But yet they still did it, why couldn't India?

Keep in mind, to rebel, these various divisions don't need to cooperate with each other, just against the British to be effective.

[Longbowman]

Because my ancestors were there. Longbowman genetics are invincible.

[Stefan_Dusan]

Because my ancestors were there. Longbowman genetics are invincible.

what happened in afghanistan mate :D

[Longbowman]

what happened in afghanistan mate :D

My ancestors weren't there.

[Piccolo]

There was not an "India" to begin with. There were different states of varying sizes and the British were successful in playing one against another. Also, Indian society itself is deeply divided, and many of those who were peasants or the underclass were hardly politically conscious or active to play any type of defining role of resistance against colonialism, nor was British rule so overbearing that the masses felt an urgent call for anti-colonialism.

This is a great answer. Apparently many Indian princes ended up siding with the British and kept their thrones under the Raj and had a kind of nominal sovereignty, so I am sure having compliant native Indian rulers helped the British maintain their empire.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state

[StonyArabia]

That's a myth. However India was not state to begin with, and the Mughal empire had disintegrated which helped in the process. It was not easy especially when they tried to conquer the Sikh regions, it took several battles before they actually won and conquered that region.

[Stefan_Dusan]

That's a myth. However India was not state to begin with, and the Mughal empire had disintegrated which helped in the process. It was not easy especially when they tried to conquer the Sikh regions, it took several battles before they actually won and conquered that region.

Why was Afghanistan never conquered? Its a fraction of the size of India.

[StonyArabia]

Why was Afghanistan never conquered? Its a fraction of the size of India.

The terrain of Afghanistan, makes it difficult to conquer.

[zhaoyun]

You can say something about Afghanistan. Afghanistan today is brutally divided into many tribes, languages, Pashtuns are not the only players there. But yet they still did it, why couldn't India?

Keep in mind, to rebel, these various divisions don't need to cooperate with each other, just against the British to be effective.

Afghanistan has a long history of warlike and proud tribes. Indian society is very sedentary with massive social divisions, and a compliant underclass. That's the difference.

[Yuffayur]

India were divided in a lot of micro-states their politics sucks, and military they were weak.

[Ianus]

The main reason was the void of power in India around 1760, when the conquest began:

-The Moghul Empire after the death of Aurangzeb de facto collapsed
-The Maratha confederation was annichilet in battle by Afghans
-The French were defeated in the Seven Years War

English army also was more advanced technologically and better equipped, trained and disciplined than Indian armies, but however they didn't encounter a serious competitor.

[Skipetar]

Why was Afghanistan never conquered? Its a fraction of the size of India.

Highlands very hard to conquer with isolated water sources.

[barbatus]

This is why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTIIMJ9tUc8

[StormBringer]

India.
A land of ancient mysterious, mystic ancient mystery. An ancient mysterious, mystic land locked within an ancient mysterious mystic tradition of ancient mysterious mystic mystery wrapped within the mysteries of ancient mysticism.

With 4 billion (eh?) people that we used to run with two blokes and a bike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CS1cUIxBVg

[Stefan_Dusan]

Highlands very hard to conquer with isolated water sources.

Common answer, and ofc geography plays a role, but geography only plays a role in supporting the people who are willing to resist. Afghanistan has 1/60 th the size of India/Pakistan/Bangledesh. In the end it's the attitude of the people that make them easy conquered or not.

Look at Iraq today, lowland and desert and USA withdrew (and re-entered but different story).

[dude]

My ancestors weren't there.
Does this mean your ancestor are in the US and other were sent to fight in the revolutionary war as redcoats?

[dude]

What happened is that the Indians did not have you in there.

[Ouistreham]

Why was Afghanistan never conquered? Its a fraction of the size of India.
Afghanistan was and is divided into a lot of tribes, but was and is unanimously Muslim and therefore unanimously prone to rebel against any non-Muslim invaders.

On the other hand India's ruling classes were deeply divided between Hinduists, Muslims and Sikhs, which offered all best opportunities to play the divide-ut-impera card.

[Longbowman]

Does this mean your ancestor are in the US and other were sent to fight in the revolutionary war as redcoats?

No it means my ancestors moved to colonial India and Southeast Asia and Hong Kong.

[Kamal900]

Because there was no such thing as "india" as a nation that we know today, and the continent is pretty much divided into small kingdoms and etc. In fact, it was the british that gave the indians the sense of unity, modernity and civilization generally which they lacked before the british. You know, its funny that how indians portray the british as evil aggressors who stole all the wealth and etc, and yet, the reality is that the british gave them democracy, modernization, technology and etc which weren't available in India.

[dude]

No it means my ancestors moved to colonial India and Southeast Asia and Hong Kong.
I see, but still some had to be in England since you are there.

[Longbowman]

I see, but still some had to be in England since you are there.

They returned. Or their children and children's children did.

[dude]

They returned. Or their children and children's children did.
Fascinating!

[Unome]

No this is wrong. The British couldn't conquer Afghanistan (30 million people today) but could conquer India + Pakistan + Bangledesh (1.7 billion today)?

The only difference was the Afghanis rebelled, and the Indians never really did. If even 1% of Indian population rebelled Britian would have been driven out.
The British Empire expanded over water, not land. Afghanistan has no coastline.

The biggest land empire and expansion was Khan and his mongolian golden horde, also Macedonian Greeks under Alexander in the ancient era.

[Graham]

Indian division was the main reason. Brit Empire played divide and rule. Taking Indians on the Empires side against others.

[wvwvw]

Cause Indians just like to stare


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D9n00_hq8

Lol I've always felt uncomfortable around Pakistanis/Indians because of that. Hard to explain why but they feel so "alien" to me. While blacks seem a lot more familiar in mentality even when they come straight out of Nigeria. odd

[dude]

Lol I've always felt uncomfortable around Pakistanis/Indians because of that. Hard to explain why but they feel so "alien" to me. While blacks seem a lot more familiar in mentality even when they come straight out of Nigeria. odd
Maybe because your ancestors were raised by black slaves and "help".

[wvwvw]

Maybe because your ancestors were raised by black slaves and "help".

I think it's because it is not in their culture to stare, at least not to the degree that Indians and Pakistanis do

[Longbowman]

Fascinating!

Nah, with independence most Anglos returned home. We were never a significant section of the population anyway.

[dude]

I think it's because it is not in their culture to stare, at least not to the degree that Indians and Pakistanis do
If blacks are staring at you, it means you are screw, and they run fast.

[dude]

Nah, with independence most Anglos returned home. We were never a significant section of the population anyway.
I was just following the humor. lol. When I was in Hong Kong in some parts there were a lot of British people. In some ways it was kind of like being in the US. People spoke English everywhere, more like British English actually.

[wvwvw]

If blacks are staring at you, it means you are screw, and they run fast.

Well at least their stare is not creepy nor makes you feel uncomfortable.

[dude]

Well at least their stare is not creepy nor makes you feel uncomfortable.
I'd rather be creep out then stabbed and left bleeding in the middle of the road, because no nigga will call an ambulance.

[Longbowman]

I was just following the humor. lol. When I was in Hong Kong in some parts there were a lot of British people. In some ways it was kind of like being in the US. People spoke English everywhere, more like superior English actually.

British English is the standard in a lot of the Commonwealth. I went to Hong Kong as a child when it was still a colony, in fact, and one or two ancestors were born there.

[dude]

British English is the standard in a lot of the Commonwealth. I went to Hong Kong as a child when it was still a colony, in fact, and one or two ancestors were born there.
I realized that, most of the world speaks British English. As much as I hate to admit it, but we Americans are the ones with the strange accent, lol. I was in HK when it was a colony.

[♥ Lily ♥]

I realized that, most of the world speaks British English. As much as I hate to admit it, but we Americans are the ones with the strange accent, lol. I was in HK when it was a colony.

Americans and Canadians have a rhotic accent like the Irish, the Cornish, and like the folk in south-west England. Shakespeare's rhotic accent, which was used more in the time of medieval England.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmtqn8wANLY

[wvwvw]

Indian society is very judgmental society and very conservative society but for some reason very passive society. I'm curious why.

Could be the tropical climate, the extreme heat in the summer months who knows

[dude]

Americans and Canadians have a rhotic accent like the Irish, the Cornish, and like the folk in south-west England. Shakespeare's rhotic accent, which was used more in the time of medieval England.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmtqn8wANLY
That video sounds almost like American Country music. But the Irish I have met speak with an accent closer to British that American.

[wvwvw]

Malnutrition may be a factor too. Starving Africans for example appear very apathetic too, coincidence?

[jatt]

it was Indians fighting against Indians. british used divide and rule policy. sided with one king against another. it took 200 years to completely conquer india. Afghanistan is mountaneous and cant be easily conquered although we Sikhs have ruled parts of it.. half of Afghanistan is in Pakistan because british inherited it from Sikh empire. there was nothing in Afghanistan whereas india was worlds largest economy back then..

[JohnSmith]

Because people of British decent are Gods, :). I mean English is God's Language.:p

[Graham]

I visited Hong Kong as a child. But only on a computer called Shenmue. #privaliged

[Oneeye]

They don't even eat meat.

THIS. Vegetarianism is for livestock and wimps.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

The main reason is because the average IQ of India is 81 and the average IQ of Great Britain is 100. That is a larger gap than the black and white difference (85 vs 100) in the USA and blacks were outright slaves in America unlike Indians (from India) so this is not hard to fathom.

[JohnSmith]

The main reason is because the average IQ of India is 81 and the average IQ of Great Britain is 100. That is a larger gap than the black and white difference (85 vs 100) in the USA and blacks were outright slaves in America unlike Indians (from India) so this is not hard to fathom.

I do not think IQ is that good at determining much. South Koreans, the Japanese, and Chinese from Hong Kong are then the smartest people on earth.

[Fortis in Arduis]

it was Indians fighting against Indians. british used divide and rule policy. sided with one king against another. it took 200 years to completely conquer india. Afghanistan is mountaneous and cant be easily conquered although we Sikhs have ruled parts of it.. half of Afghanistan is in Pakistan because british inherited it from Sikh empire. there was nothing in Afghanistan whereas india was worlds largest economy back then..

How would you compare the methods of colonisation employed by the British with those used by India's Islamic conquerors?

[jatt]

The main reason is because the average IQ of India is 81 and the average IQ of Great Britain is 100. That is a larger gap than the black and white difference (85 vs 100) in the USA and blacks were outright slaves in America unlike Indians (from India) so this is not hard to fathom.
There is no error proof way to measure human intelligence.. these iq tests are fallacy. give iq test without reading anything and later learn reasoning and aptitude from some good books and you will score more than many scientists. even Einstein was conserd retard by some

[jatt]

How would you compare the methods of colonisation employed by the British with those used by India's Islamic conquerors?

Islamic conquerors were not colonisers they made india there home. wlthough they were brutal and tried to spread islam in india and failed..british were true colonisers they looted india n all of its wealth.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Islamic conquerors were not colonisers they made india there home. wlthough they were brutal and tried to spread islam in india and failed..british were true colonisers they looted india n all of its wealth.

I was hoping to have a comparison of methods from the Indian perspective.

There is something hard to understand about the (British) coloniser who leaves being seen as a true coloniser, but the coloniser who rules, stays and makes the colony their home as somehow not so.

[Astronaut]

Because there was no such thing as "india" as a nation that we know today, and the continent is pretty much divided into small kingdoms and etc. In fact, it was the british that gave the indians the sense of unity, modernity and civilization generally which they lacked before the british. You know, its funny that how indians portray the british as evil aggressors who stole all the wealth and etc, and yet, the reality is that the british gave them democracy, modernization, technology and etc which weren't available in India.


Indians see British rulers are evil plunderers primarily because they destroyed India's economy.British rule was a mixed bag for India,while they did bring in some form of modernization, at the same time they pillaged the entire country,thus condemning millions to a life of poverty and hunger.

[Astronaut]

Islamic conquerors were not colonisers they made india there home. wlthough they were brutal and tried to spread islam in india and failed..british were true colonisers they looted india n all of its wealth.


Both were colonizers.British managed to Rule India primarily because of a large non muslim support.You can evidently see that in the war of 1857,most of the opponents were Muslims where as most of the proponent fighters were Hindus.


British rule,however evil it was,still it was the need of the time.Had it not been for British Intervention,the India that you see today might not have ever existed and most of the non muslim minorities would have been massacred to extinction,just like you are seeing in Pakistan,Afghanistan and Bangladesh.


The current situation of India is largely because of the economic policies followed after Independence and has very little to do with British rule.Had India adopted a market economy,instead of a socialist command economy,we would have become a rich country by now.

[Mortimer]

I was hoping to have a comparison of methods from the Indian perspective.

There is something hard to understand about the (British) coloniser who leaves being seen as a true coloniser, but the coloniser who rules, stays and makes the colony their home as somehow not so.

If im not mistaken the mughals were indianised etc. by intermarriage with indians after a century they were not foreigners anymore etc. and they used indians for their administration etc. the british forbid intermarriage with indians, and beat up indians who wanted to have a white girl

[Mortimer]

I would like to study the colonialism in india from a indian perspective, i might ask this question to the indian defence forum and see indian responses etc.

[Mortimer]

you can follow their responses here http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/religion-culture/65268-colonialism-india.html#post973797

[Kamal900]

Indians see British rulers are evil plunderers primarily because they destroyed India's economy.British rule was a mixed bag for India,while they did bring in some form of modernization, at the same time they pillaged the entire country,thus condemning millions to a life of poverty and hunger.

Blaming others, esp to the people that you hate, for your own misfortunes and etc is nothing but cowardly tactics used to make themselves look innocent and etc. The British had been ruling the country of Oman for over a century, but at the same time, the people of Oman managed to create a country that is both rich and peaceful. Hong Kong had been under the british rule longer than most places on earth, and yet, the city to this day is extremely rich and stable.

[Astronaut]

Blaming others, esp to the people that you hate, for your own misfortunes and etc is nothing but cowardly tactics used to make themselves look innocent and etc. The British had been ruling the country of Oman for over a century, but at the same time, the people of Oman managed to create a country that is both rich and peaceful. Hong Kong had been under the british rule longer than most places on earth, and yet, the city to this day is extremely rich and stable.


India is not an oil depot like Oman or a trading port city like Hong Kong.India is a continental size country of 1.2 billion people,a population larger than the combined population of entire Europe and North America.

Let me teach you the history.Before the British intervention,India had a large textile industry which employed millions.

When British conquered India,They destroyed those mills to prevent it from competing with their own mills, thus rendering millions of peasants homeless and destitute.

Also the British forced Indian farmers to produce cash crops like opium instead of food crops to fund their opium trade.This resulted in food shortage and resulting in millions dying in mass famines.On the top of that the British forced the farmers to sell their raw materials as a very cheap price so as to support the mills in their homeland and forced the very same people to but the end products at a very exorbitant cost.This monopolization and strangulation of Indian economy resulted in total stagnation pushing millions into the brink of starvation.

Under the British rule India saw no socio economic growth,poverty became widespread and famine became a regular occurrence.

[B01AB20]

Indians were very busy carrying water from here to there.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?144454-The-Wello-Water-Wheel-story

[Why Always Me?]

because they stink

[Astronaut]

Indians were very busy carrying water from here to there.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?144454-The-Wello-Water-Wheel-story


and who would have fabricated and manufactured that wheel ? Surely poor fellas can't.

India has even better method of water conservation

http://www.ecoideaz.com/expert-corner/water-conservation-methods-india

[King Claus]

When the Indian population is so huge? Much larger than the British population.

There is historic precedent, the British tried to control all of "India", but the northwest gave them continuous trouble, constant rebellions. So they decided this quadrant was not worth it, they decided to draw a border, called Durand line, and that line is today the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Everything south of this line was "India" (even Pakistan at the time) and was for most part easily controlled by the British. Why did this small quadrant with much less people prove to be uncontrollable?

Could this be tied to Hinduism and how it's one of the most passive religions in the world. They don't even eat meat.
Because they are naturally too lazy to take a stand. Just look at gypsies in europe:thumb001:

[B01AB20]

and who would have fabricated and manufactured that wheel ? Surely poor fellas can't.

India has even better method of water conservation

http://www.ecoideaz.com/expert-corner/water-conservation-methods-india

well, it hadn't to be precisely that wheel, but using some artifact with some kind of wheel seems much more efficient and healthy than to carry heavy water just on the head.

and the wheel is known by indians since millenia ago.

[Astronaut]

well, it hadn't to be precisely that wheel, but using some artifact with some kind of wheel seems much more efficient and healthy than to carry heavy water just on the head.

and the wheel is known by indians since millenia ago.

Pulling a wheel over a muddy,rocky,desert ,uneven surface or unpaved roads is a much tougher task than carrying it overhead.

Before all these,Indians had canal system in each and every locality for rain water harvesting which incidentally was destroyed by the you know who :p