'Indian history was distorted by the British'

[Armand2REP]

The Indian nation-state was forged neither by the British nor by some ancient tradition of Hinduism, but by a bald, half-naked fakir named Gandhi. This fakir mobilized the Indian masses for the first time in its history.

What I am asking, could they have been united if there were still a bunch of sultanates and kingdoms that had not been subjugated by the British? They were never interested in uniting India unless it was under their rule.

 

[civfanatic]

What I am asking, could they have been united if there were still a bunch of sultanates and kingdoms that had not been subjugated by the British? They were never interested in uniting India unless it was under their rule.

That would be delving too deep into speculative history. If the British did not colonize India, I think that India would have eventually developed into a system of sovereign nation-states like Europe in the 19th century. There may or may not be an Indian version of the Great War. These sovereign Indian nation-states would be much more homogeneous and stable than a united Indian Republic, and probably would be more economically dynamic as well (since the British economic exploitation and de-industrialization would not have occurred).

So no, I don't think India would have united and created a copy of the modern Indian Republic, but I also think India as a whole would be better off socially and economically if the British had not colonized the subcontinent. Of course, this is nothing but heavy speculation.

 

[Armand2REP]

That would be delving too deep into speculative history. If the British did not colonize India, I think that India would have eventually developed into a system of sovereign nation-states like Europe in the 19th century. There may or may not be an Indian version of the Great War. These sovereign Indian nation-states would be much more homogeneous and stable than a united Indian Republic, and probably would be more economically dynamic as well (since the British economic exploitation and de-industrialization would not have occurred).

So no, I don't think India would have united and created a copy of the modern Indian Republic, but I also think India as a whole would be better off socially and economically if the British had not colonized the subcontinent. Of course, this is nothing but heavy speculation.

My original question included if you thought India better off under smaller nation states... I take it that as a yes.

 

[Armand2REP]

Lots of its and buts can be thought about. There were some very big empires in India at the time.

Wonder if 20th century nationalism would have galvanized people of subcontinent to unite as one may be using both culture as well as religion (Hinduism) as a uniting factor. But then again there are inherit divides in Hinduism.

With democracy takin form all over the world, and coming of modern political leaders, may be we could have well formed modern India in spite of having so many states to start with. And who knows we might have had a bigger nation without the horrors of partition.

Do you think India would have been better off if the British didn't come but India was united under one of those bigger kingdoms? Would Ghandi have been possible?

 

[civfanatic]

My original question included if you thought India better off under smaller nation states... I take it that as a yes.

Your original question was invalid as well as condescending, since there were hardly any "city-states" in India when the East India Company began acquiring territory. The individual Indian states were as large and populous as those of Europe, and easily had the potential to become as powerful as them.

 

[bose]

When british came to Inida, I read from an article that India's economy was around 20% or world economy and when british left India's economy was 2% of the world economy.

So it is very simple to deduce what India gained and lost...

 

[pankaj nema]

The British created the conditions ie wide spread and devastating poverty
because of which a Freedom movement was launched to get rid of them
under Gandhi's leadership

But it is also true that the Same British created other conditions which forged a Nation out of this Landmass

Such as A Common NAME given to this landmass called INDIA

Then it was followed by Railways Roads , Posts and Telegraphs , Common Currency
A Judiciary , Newspapers , Modern Education which made Indians realise

1 that there was an Inherent Civilisational Unity amongst them because of Hinduism
2 Because of constant Infighting India was subjugated over the centuries

 

[pmaitra]

Do you think India would have been better off if the British didn't come but India was united under one of those bigger kingdoms?

Yes. Had it not been for the British, the Russians would have come (they were already in Afghanistan and Tibet), and they'd have treated us way better than the Brits, and we would have gotten access to the fruits of the Industrial Revolution.

Would Ghandi have been possible?

There is no such thing as Ghandi.

 

[pmaitra]

My original question included if you thought India better off under smaller nation states... I take it that as a yes.

Why do you bother to ask questions, when you have already made up your mind about the answer?

 

[Dinesh_Kumar]

When under foreign ruler, we were well and truly united, and fought for freedom together as one. Thats good.

I wish it happens again (i.e being well and truly united, not being under foreign ruler)

 

[Virendra]

Do you really believe India would have united peacefully without the British? Every time the Subcontinent was united was due to someone conquering it... such as the Gupta EMPIRE, the Mughal EMPIRE or the Mauryan EMPIRE. India has been no stranger to war with or without the British.

Do you really believe that British united India peacefully?
Bringing numerous Kingdoms under an Imperial throne has never been compeltely free of wars. And again .. the British didn't unite India.
They ruled over various parts of Indian terriroty via one administrative unit. What united India was the common struggle against the British that evolved into the 19th and 20th century Indian nationalism. You are mixing Territory with Nation.

Ancient Imperials weren't genocidal. The Mauryans didn't persecute the people like the British or Mughals did. Guptas didn't persecute the people like the British or Mughals did.
Above all, British were completely foreign in India and had no rights to interfere in Indian administration. British don't have any moral high grounds over Mauryans or Guptas.
Read the Chinese travellers accounts of India to know what Indian martial traditions were and how Kshatriyas of various Kingdoms fought battles.
Perhaps an Indian account would be called biased.
As far as Mughals are concerned, the medieval history of India is full of the blood that is on their shoulders. All you have to do is pick the books up and read.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[lcatejas]

Indian history was distorted by the British, Mugals and now by Congress ..................

 

[Tronic]

Yes. Had it not been for the British, the Russians would have come (they were already in Afghanistan and Tibet), and they'd have treated us way better than the Brits, and we would have gotten access to the fruits of the Industrial Revolution.

I completely disagree. Had British not arrived, Afghanistan would've been a part of Ranjit Singh's Empire. If you have read Punjab's history of the time, Ranjit Singh's expansions into Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet were not random expansions but part of a well devised plan to take control of the silk route.

Moreover, what people don't know is that the Sikh army at that time was a very Westernized and European-style army whose official language was French, due to it being modernized by French generals who were hired by Ranjit Singh after the fall of Napolean... (Infact, one of the famous "Sikh" generals of the Khalsa army was actually a Frenchman, General Jean-Francois Allard...)

Had they met the Russians, it would most likely not have been on friendly terms..

 

[Simple_Guy]

On Google Books they say Ranjit Singh's expansion towards Afghanistan came after his friendship with British.

If British had not been there, Ranjit Singh would have expanded towards Delhi, but he had to give up and Patiala and other Sikhs came under British.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Sardar Patel was real uniter of India

He was not only the most illustrious son of a farmer who motivated farmers to join India's freedom struggle but also brought over 500 princely states join 'Union of India'.

Mr. Modi said that India could not forget Sardar Patel's singular contribution to the 'Unity of India' and the farmers from all corners of the country could show best their emotional attachment to the 'Statue of Unity' project through their though small but unique involvement.

 

[Tronic]

On Google Books they say Ranjit Singh's expansion towards Afghanistan came after his friendship with British.

If British had not been there, Ranjit Singh would have expanded towards Delhi, but he had to give up and Patiala and other Sikhs came under British.

What ridiculous assertions. Patiala was never directly ruled by Ranjit Singh and was an independent Sikh princely state, ruled by Amar Singh. It was part of the Sikh confederacy until Raja Amar Singh decided to withdraw from the Confederacy and joined the British against Maharaja Ranjit Singh. There was never any "friendship" between Ranjit Singh and the British. You clearly have your history heavily skewed. I would recommend some proper sources, since "Google Books" is merely a search engine, not a source in itself.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Google Books is a hundred time better source than wikipedia and other junk websites. There all Paaki keep writing anti-India bakwaas.

You are too emotional on this subject but it is a fact that Ranjit Singh signed treaty of Amritsar without fighting a battle.

 

[Simple_Guy]

He had to fight Afhgan on one side and British on other. British were a global power and Afghans were nothing. So Ranjit Singh did the right thinng. Make friends with British and drive out Afghans from India.

 

[TrueSpirit]

I completely disagree. Had British not arrived, Afghanistan would've been a part of Ranjit Singh's Empire. If you have read Punjab's history of the time, Ranjit Singh's expansions into Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet were not random expansions but part of a well devised plan to take control of the silk route.

Moreover, what people don't know is that the Sikh army at that time was a very Westernized and European-style army whose official language was French, due to it being modernized by French generals who were hired by Ranjit Singh after the fall of Napolean... (Infact, one of the famous "Sikh" generals of the Khalsa army was actually a Frenchman, General Jean-Francois Allard...)

Had they met the Russians, it would most likely not have been on friendly terms..

These facts are precise & the conjectures fired are quite palpable.

 

[TrueSpirit]

Your original question was invalid as well as condescending, since there were hardly any "city-states" in India when the East India Company began acquiring territory. The individual Indian states were as large and populous as those of Europe, and easily had the potential to become as powerful as them.

When british came to Inida, I read from an article that India's economy was around 20% or world economy and when british left India's economy was 2% of the world economy.

So it is very simple to deduce what India gained and lost...

@Armand2REP If you have the slightest iota of interest in history, you can find out for yourself that the above two posts sum it up, precisely.